r/academia

Hey guys,

I'm a strong supporter of making science closer to the general public and that we also engage outside our teams.

Nevertheless, I am not willing to go back to Twitter (for obvious reasons) neither go to bluesky. I have a mastodon account, but It doesn't seem to have the same popularity.

Why are we not engaging in open-source and transparent socials?? Do you have recommendations?

I submitted an article to a journal in late April. In early July I received two peer-review reports (both recommended acceptance with minor revisions) plus a detailed copy-editing report. I submitted the revised manuscript and all the requested plagiarism/AI reports within the same month.

Since then I have received zero communication. The issue I submitted to has now been published and my article is not in it. The editor never sent an acceptance, a rejection, or even a “we are still deciding” message.

I am an independent early-career researcher and this was my first experience with this journal.

Questions:

Is it common for journals to simply publish an issue without ever notifying authors who had already completed peer review and revisions?

What is the most professional way to follow up at this point (or is it better to just withdraw and move on)?

Has anyone successfully pushed for a formal decision after an issue has already appeared?

Any advice would be appreciated.

I have been unemployed since last year December after my phd graduation, surviving on savings which are going to exhaust soon. Since then i have been writing grants proposals and cold emailing to over 50 targeted and good fit PIs. No response at all. Have 2 first author papers over all 5 papers in decent impact factor. What i should do next. I am from a conventional chemistry background. I know this is going to be difficult, Anyone in a similar situation. Any small suggestion is appreciated. Thanks.

Do you list the grant proposals youve submitted that were not funded on your CV?

The Texas Tech faculty meeting began amicably this spring, with offers of refreshments. Then administrators handed out reports, created partly by artificial intelligence, listing the lessons professors needed to stop teaching.

“What?” one professor asked. “I don’t even teach those things.”

“There are factual errors,” added another.

“It’s A.I. slop,” a third said.

Texas Tech is using A.I. to ferret out books and other materials that touch on topics like sexual orientation and gender identity. Professors describe the effort as a dystopian academic nightmare, in which ideologues are wielding technology to sideline subject-matter experts.

I’m at a UK institution, in the humanities. I have just now read and instantly accepted a really interesting, well-written, genuine contribution to an academic debate.

I know some reviewers feel like they have to find something wrong with every submission but it feels so good to hit the accept button!

Adjuncts were originally used in small numbers, as a way to bring industry professionals into the classroom. Now they’re a cost-saving measure, with positions often filled by academics vying for a decreasing number of tenure-track jobs. This is the case even as universities continue to spend big in other areas, such as to cover the costs of their increasingly large administrations or to construct new buildings designed to garner prestige and lure students.

Adjuncts typically receive no benefits: no employer-sponsored healthcare plan, no retirement plan, no sick leave, no disability, and, of course, no support for research and writing. This isn’t just bad for adjuncts as workers; it’s bad for everyone, affecting the quality of education, our ideals of equity, and our ability to create a society rich with new art, stories, and ideas.

Adjunct labor disproportionately affects women and Black people and, ironically, is most often used in the liberal arts and humanities, disciplines that often position themselves as centers of freedom and diversity

idk man the pay-to-play schemes are js too saturated and kinda all over the place. anything actually useful for students who genuinely wanna make a move (not that im always expecting to be spoon feeded)

Now, I think that two months is still completely fine (indeed, I hope for a competent revision instead of the 'fast ones'). But I would wondering when to start contacting the editorial board.

Have a small rant I want to share while I go through preparing more faculty application packages for another (unhopeful) round.

I came to my mid/high level R1 as the first post-doc hire of a new professor, who was joining at Associate rank. I started on his start-up and helped secure the first 3 year grant. I premise with that he has been a super supportive advisor, and my gripe is with the system and not him. I have driven all of the research outputs of his group for five years now (only PD, no graduating PhD students, but two are a year or so out), doing no active research himself, and he has just been promoted to Full Professor. What really grinds me is I am now close to "aging out" of R1 academia, with no faculty offers after 7 years post-PhD.

So the culmination is my research output has been strong enough for five years to go from associate to full professor, but not enough to go from PD to assistant professor/scientist in the same system. Just feels ridiculously discouraging.

Sent in an article to a journal 6/8 and just got a desk reject (for scope) from the editor. I'm pissed off about this -- is that legit? Thinking of sending a note to the editor. To put this in context, I am an Associate Editor for a journal myself, and at most we take 2 weeks for desk rejects. This isn't OK, is it?

I'm in the process of applying for some early career teaching fellowships, and the questions on the application have me wondering if there are certain phrases or methodologies that are expected when I'm describing my approach to teaching, and helping struggling students? Or are they looking for a personal approach?

Anyone's colleges have AI taking over any units or services previously done by humans yet? If so which ones? How'd it go or is it new for the upcoming year?

Will a phd visiting at a good lab at top 10 university open more door (both academic and industry job), on CV? (I know a strong recommendation letter from big name help, but let's assume the average case, that the visit results in a paper collab with the lab) Or will it only provide modest or small benefit?

Title. For example, if a computational biology professor applied to a major flagship grant for an "emerging area" -- e.g., the NSF 2009 “OMICS Technologies" and 2026 "Synthtic Micobiomes" grants -- but were rejected, would they typically continue working in that area and apply for future grants? Or would the majority of profesors in that position pivot towards other topics (and if so, what are the primary reasons for doing so)? In comp bio, for instance, I could imagine costs of data generation / access & the need for specialized infrastructure being reasons that profesors would not continue pursuing an emerging area without dedicated funding.

I’m asking as a student interested in becoming a professor who would like to work on emerging areas as they first develop, around the time the first major flagship funding programs are launched. Thus, I’m trying to understand whether it’s realistically possible to enter a “hot” field early even if one misses the first major funding round, or whether those initial flagship grants often determine who can meaningfully participate.

Would be especially interested in seeing how this differs between i) wet-lab research, ii) data-intensive dry-lab fields (e.g., computational biology and computational social science), and iii) more theoretical disciplines.

i currently live in melb and am wanting to pursue research in science, such as genetics/path/microbio, etc, or maybe a healthcare job in path. i am mostly interested in genetics.

is it worth aiming to go to an american uni or another country?

i would like to go to uni melb and do a bachelor of science (or biomed), as i am fairly confident i can achieve the atar requirements, but my family encourages me to go to uni in the US since theres more opportunities. however i have like zero extracurriculars so...

ive also heard good things about unis in singapore, korea, japan, UK, etc.

in the long run, is doing undergraduate studies in a non-australian country worth it for scientific research?

Suppose an author has two related articles prepared for submission: A and B.
I see many authors do the following: post both on arxiv; then, when submitting them to actual academic journals, cite B in A and also cite A in B.
What is your opinion on this?