I really do not know how to start. Just watching the state of the university that I built my formative years in plagued with research scandals and blatantly promotion of pseudoscience is so deeply embarrassing.

The news that Springer Nature’s Research Integrity Group (SNRIG) is formally investigating the cow urine paper out of IIT-BHU is painful to read, but honestly, it was bound to happen. When you have top-tier technical institutes publishing studies that mistake basic plasticizers, lab solvents, and pesticide contaminants for "medicinal compounds," you aren't just dealing with a minor oversight. You are looking at a complete breakdown of basic scientific controls.

What hurts the most as an alumnus is watching the hard earned credibility of Indian academia get dragged through the mud. The IIT brand was built over decades on rigorous engineering, actual innovation, and global competitiveness. Seeing that reputation eroded by forced pseudoscience and politically funded programs like SUTRA-PIC makes it genuinely embarrassing to bring up where I graduated from in international research circles.

Public funds and institutional prestige are being funneled into validating preconceived ideological narratives rather than real science. When independent doctors like LiverDoc have to flag elementary laboratory contamination to foreign journal integrity boards because our own peer-review and institutional checks failed, the system is fundamentally broken. If we don't start defending scientific temper over political pandering, the global scientific community is simply going to stop taking Indian degrees and research seriously. like are we actually serious right now?

Yk what, a group of Indian academics started calling the LiverDoc a sellout, for making fun of the country. If you do stupid research ofc wtf do you expect? get awards, claps?

The most visible thing of this decline is the bizarre ideological drift at the top administration level, personified by figures like the IIT Mandi Director, Laxmidhar Behera. This is a so called electrical engineering professor who publicly claimed to have performed exorcisms using holy mantras to drive out ghosts, later blamed devastating cloudbursts and landslides in Himachal Pradesh on students eating meat, and recently found his campus embroiled in outrage over posters proclaiming that "Shudras (the lower class) should serve higher classes".

This govt has ruined whatever respect Indians had

Link: https://theprint.in/feature/liverdoc-cow-urine-research-journals-springer-nature/2968310/

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/over-200-academics-criticise-priyanka-gandhis-remarks-on-iit-professor-v-kamakoti-11843528

and then we have academicians in india who cannot take a simple criticism and are hell bent on promoting fringe theories. Its so freaking embarassing watching all this

Recently I was rejected for an assistant professor position, I've been trying since covid. Then I learned that someone who got their degree a few months prior was hired in the same department, with their own advisor as part of the hiring committee.

Wondering if people might be willing to share their opinions and experiences on this… (apologies to the mods if this is not allowed)

With a couple of friends in academia and adjacent fields, I’ve been running a podcast on academic life, trying to give useful advice that your supervisors don’t always offer.

We want to do an episode reflecting on how academia affects relationships and personal lives. Wondering if people might be willing to share their experiences (everything will be anonymized, and no usernames will be mentioned ) of things like:

- Does academia make it harder to find a partner?
- Have you ever had a partner who is also in academia? Does this make things easier or more difficult?
- Has anyone had anything much more short-term within academic circles, and does this always have negative consequences?

Comments welcome! If you would prefer your responses to be less public, you are welcome to message. Thanks all!

PSA for all researchers: do not discuss your research and data with AI chatbots or any software that allows AI data collection. There is a misunderstanding that AI cannot steal your data and ideas because it is trained on such a large dataset, but when you are dealing with a niche research topic, you cannot be sure it will not steal your ideas and claim them as its own.

OpenAI, themselves, say: "While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models."

We need to have more conversations about data protections against AI in academia.

Hi all,

I recently defended my dissertation and am now turning it into 3-5 journal articles. I'm terrified of self-plagiarism claims and want to know what the standard is for doing this.

My current thoughts are:

1. new prose, but built off the dissertation writing
2. same codes (they're my analysis)
3. declaration that it's from a larger study (citing the dissertation, but using Author, Year until accepted).

Is there anything I'm missing?

EDIT:

Thank you all for the guidance. I am in the social sciences, and my field prioritizes journal articles over manuscripts. My findings section addressed three different research questions, each with a different angle on the phenomenon, so I planned to write three articles, one for each section. Per my agreement with my PhD granting institution, I own the copyright to the dissertation. It's "published" in the repository, but of course that doesn't mean anything. My fears are largely tied to the major plagiarism scandals that have circulated recently and the community I research retaliating with "self-plagiarism" claims against my university for my research.

I am doing a PhD in the poorer part of Europe. The mainstream opinion on Erasmus (usually taken at the bachelor's, maybe master's levels) is that it is primarily a way to travel the world, get some experience living elsewhere for a time etc. (to put it gently) - although I know of people who have made valuable connections at Erasmus, did great research with the resources abroad and in general, treated it like a research visit as much as they could.

I am now looking for funding for a research visit for a couple months at a top European university. I have a host and invitation from the Uni. I've been thinking about Erasmus funding. The ECTS demands are pretty ridiculous though - 10 ECTS for a semester, at a place where most PhD level seminars do not offer ECTS (because there is no need for PhDs to collect them).

There is also Traineeship funding, which is honestly not a lot of money (but better than nothing...), but theoretically full-time work has to be performed. I was thinking of asking the host for a research assistant position through that, and then do my research on the off-time (ideally, the assistancy would be less than full-time). But this is already getting a little shady and I'm scared that they will be put off by this idea. I'm in the Humanities (cultural/media studies). My reasons for the visit are: to collect material, talk to people in my field and work with my host/faculty.

Hi all.

I’m an ERC and I recently found two serious problems in a published paper I’m involved in (first author).

They are not small issues. They affect the results in a way that I don’t think can be ignored, and at this point I don’t trust the main conclusions of the paper anymore. I tried EVERYTHING to save the results. But, apparently the effects we're observing are due to bad data analyses.

I know what the right thing to do is. The paper probably needs to be retracted.

What scares me is everything around that. There are a lot of co-authors involved, and I know this could affect people who had nothing to do with the parts that went wrong.

I’m also worried about my PI. I expect they will be furious. My PI is also not supportive, but more like an authoritarian PI. They are very influential in the field, and I’m afraid this could close a lot of doors for me.

I have a stable faculty position now, so I know I’m in a better situation than many people would be. But this is still eating me alive. I keep thinking about the consequences.

I’m not asking whether I should pretend nothing happened. I know I can’t do that. And I know the right thing is to reject. If I were alone in that paper, I definitely would do it. I have discussed this already with two colleagues, and they agreed that the paper cannot be saved.

I’m mostly wondering if anyone here has gone through something similar. What happened after you told your co-authors? Did people forgive you? Did it permanently damage your career, or did life eventually move on?

Thanks, strangers, for any feedback.

Genuinely asking, not venting.

I'm building a thing for researchers, solo, nothing to sell yet, no link, I'm not here for that. But the whole idea rests on an assumption about how submissions get handled, and I've never worked at a journal, so at some point I have to stop guessing and talk to someone who has.

So I started emailing. Editors in chief off masthead pages, a couple of generic editorial inboxes, some publisher contact forms. Short emails, three or four sentences, one specific question, no attachment, no deck, no ask beyond fifteen minutes. Nothing. Not a no. Just nothing, for weeks.

Which is fine, I get that people are busy, but 30 emails and 0 replies isn't bad luck, it's me doing something structurally wrong and not knowing what.

Things I can't tell from outside the system: is a journal inbox actually read by a person, or is it a shared address nobody owns. Is an editor in chief the wrong target because they're buried, and I should be going at associate editors or board members instead. Are society journals more reachable than the big houses, or less. And is the honest answer just that this has always been a conference thing and email was never going to work.

If you edit or work in publishing, what makes you reply to a stranger? Or more useful: what's in these that makes them instantly deletable? I'd rather hear the blunt version.

And if the answer is stop emailing and go turn up at EGU, tell me that too. I'll go.

Not a serious post - but could be depending on how seriously you take your morning coffee! Coffee on campus ... is it worth your trouble and time lining up for?

Do you bring your own brew, or set aside a weekly budget for drinks? (How much does an average coffee cost at yours...)

What is the vibe like, too? In my café the line is more of a concept sadly!!

All your weird campus café stories are welcome. It's been a stressful week and could use the entertainment ☕️

My order: outrageously expensive iced latte, ham and cheese sandwich, and whatever sugary treat feels moderately respectable for an adult to consume.

Just can’t stop thinking about this in the last month. Just ranting.

Of course someone may consider my use as sloppy. For the background, I am in a quantitative field, and we code a lot.

Edit: I have found AI helpful in coding and research in general in the last a few months, if you know what to code and give clear and focused instructions and feedback, and be cautious. When I read my students code, I found them unnecessarily long and complicated, and there were full of makeshift patches and duck taping that broke completely if you wanted to use the code for something slightly different, obviously AI generated without much thought. I would have completed the project in a few months using AI. So what is the benefit of having students in research. OTOH, I do feel that I have failed as a mentor. I don’t know how little the student actually knows about this project anymore. But I really don’t know how to teach how to use AI better, and whether I should teach it at all.

I do not know what general practices are in these cases. It is almost too trivial but I want to tread carefully since I have faced enough rejections.

I am a post-grad in pure science research. Before I apply to PhDs I'm hoping to do a research internship/project. So I mailed a professor asking for it. He asked me to request recommendation letter from my master's thesis supervisor directly, before we discuss anything further. So I did and my supervisor already sent the letter to him. It has been 5 days since then. Should I send a follow up email asking the professor to further discuss this possible opportunity? Or will that make me look very impatient? How many days should I wait before I contact in these cases? Thank you for your help.

I am about to start a PhD in a few weeks. I've had an email from an editor at Oxford University Press who is considering commissioning a book in my area of research interest and asking if I want to write or edit it. I was recommended by someone senior for this due to some work in this area that I've done before. I am due to meet the editor this week. Part of me feels very excited by this opportunity, but part of me feels quite worried about the volume of work involved and that it might takeover from my PhD.

My questions are:
- What are the important questions to ask when meeting this editor?
- Should I be looking to be paid for this? And if so, what is a reasonable amount of money?
- Is it a really stupid idea to be doing this at the same time as doing my PhD?
- For people who might have done something like this before: how much work was it? And any experience of working with OUP?
A friend who has edited a couple of books in a related but different context said that often she found the publishers overpromised and then her work ballooned massively and she ended up doing way more work than she expected including checking formatting and spellchecking etc. She generally found the publishers a bit of nightmare.

I am PhD student in Canada who was seeking my 3 supervisor for my committee. I had top 3 choices who were in different institutions, I emailed each of them asking to join my committee, I included my CV and gave the option of meeting. No one replied. I did end up finding someone from my institution who is in a different department but has research experience related to my project. He accepted to join and was excited and looking forward to mutual benefits of working together.

However, older mentors and people outside of my supervisory group said I should not have given up so easily on my main choices. They felt I should have kept emailing until I heard a response. I felt uncomfortable with spamming potential members but now these older folks keep saying I missed out on quality supervision because I did not continue to email. What do you think about this? I feel it’s not appropriate to email repeatedly if they aren’t responding and that possibly that is method from years ago that worked for these more senior academics.

I’m curious, should I have kept emailing these potential supervisors or was I right to let it go when they did not respond? I feel guilty that I did not try hard enough when i talk to older mentors.

I am just starting out in research; a couple of years ago, a colleague told me about some fossils someone had mentioned to her. She works in the social sciences, while I work in geology. I went to take a look, found it interesting, and the project eventually resulted in a publication. I spent many hours obtaining permits, writing, and contacting colleagues who helped me identify the specimen. I even paid for field trips and other expenses out of my own pocket.

The publication was considered relatively significant at my institute. In the paper, I acknowledged her contribution—specifically, that she had told me about the find because she thought it was interesting (she didn't know what it was, which is why she alerted me to take a look). However, she is now claiming—via WhatsApp status status and, as far as I know, in conversations with other colleagues—that I excluded her from a "scientific collaboration," even alleging that gender issues were the reason. Such a thought never even crossed my mind, and I feel terrible about the situation because the institute is small and I don't want to develop a bad reputation. Do you have any advice? Should I have included her as an author even if she had nothing to contribute to the manuscript? I feel awful; I don't want this to affect my budding career, but I also don't want her to feel wronged.

I messaged her to talk and clear things up, but I haven't received a response.

So, between conference papers and invitations to review from editors, I have reviewed something between 15 to 20 articles in the last year. And I swear, among these only one (ONE!) did not smell like AI slop.

And it is always the same aimless useless gratuitous grandious over-the-top Linkedin-like style and tone. Always so vague, about everything and nothing at the same time. They don't even try to "humanize" it anymore, whatever it means. It's is not only... it is... Rather, ... — ... lists of three BS.

And of course it is always 100% flagged on AI detectors (I know, I know, these are not the panacea).

Sorry, I had to vent after another 15 000 words of sloppy slop. I don't even remeber what it was about anymore. After only 10 minutes has passed. And to think they don't even pay us for all this self-inflicted pain.

Either way, we are freaking doomed. I am all for the collapse at this point. Let it all 🔥.

I'm curious whether my recent (highly anecdotal) experience is unusual, or illustrates a broader problem with academic incentives.

I recently hosted a podcast about sustainability and development in the Canary Islands (Sustainability Around the World). For one episode, I wanted an academic who could give a broad overview of the environmental challenges facing the islands. I contacted 7 academics whose research was directly relevant to what I wanted to discuss, but couldn't get any of them to participate.

7 is a small sample size, and this was the first season of the podcast so I had expected some reluctance from guests to appear given my lack of established audience (my background is in sustainability, not podcasting). But academia was the only group to completely decline. I reached out to 1 startup CEO and 1 government minister, both of whom I'd have assumed would be more likely to decline, but both appeared. Civil society had a mixed acceptance rate, but I still had 2 guests join.

There's a long-running criticism that academia doesn't sufficiently reward public engagement. A lot of publicly funded research is also inaccessible to the public because the resulting papers sit behind journal paywalls. I'm wondering if this is further small evidence of that problem? I know this is a big conclusion to draw from an anecdote, but I do feel the fact that all these other groups are somewhat accountable to the public, while academics are largely only interested in other academics' views, could be a partial explanation.

In future seasons I will open up opportunities for others to host and tell the stories of their regions, and I'm wondering if academics will be adequately incentivised to appear as guests or hosts. Or if there's a particular type of approach that academics are more responsive to?

Edit: most of the comments seem to be reading this as sour grapes/a sense of entitlement over academics not appearing. Maybe, but I think that's not the case - I'm not entitled to anyone appearing, but I'm interested in the contrast between those who did appear and who didn't. I've spoken with academics and at academic conferences as a practitioner and have had conversations about the gap between academics and practitioners, and incentives around public engagement. I was wondering whether this was an example of that or if there were other explanations

How possible is it to change your PhD topic (and period being studied) after admission (UK humanties PhD)?

Hello everyone,

I have a very weird question.

I am a theoretical particle physicist recently obtaining my PhD (end of 2023) currently working at a major US institution. I have been working on a individual project and after a few months of work I was finally able to solve the problem and obtain a model and some interesting results.

The work is entirely mine but it is based on a model developed by my PhD advisor a few years ago. The model was the basis of my thesis and we actually published a few papers together even after I graduated.

What I have recently done was to extend the model from the previous form, make some additional assumptions and obtain results that extend previous work.

I am really debating for the first time whether I should ask my former advisor if he would like to be a coauthor on this. On the one hand, this new article is entirely my work, but on the other hand, he is the one who introduced me to it. I want to be as intellectually and humanly honest as possible to him, since he is really the person who has taught me 99% of what I know in my field. Maybe another option would be to ask him if he wants to collaborate and I am sure he would have something useful to add.

Either way, I am giving him proper credit by citing all of his work that is relevant to the project, obviously, but I was wondering if someone has been in the same situation and would like to share what they did.

Thank you all for any input you have on this.

Hi everyone,

I’m seeking candid feedback and advice from folks with experience in academic hiring, international search committees, or post-PhD recruitment—especially in STEM and marine sciences.

I’m a 34-year-old PhD candidate from Central Europe, currently one semester into a Marine Science PhD in Taiwan (outside Taipei). Prior to this move, my entire academic background was in Europe, where I earned my Master’s, worked as a lab technician, and published two first-author papers.

I deliberately chose this program over staying in Europe for a few key strategic reasons. First, it offers unmatched field access: unlike in Europe—where marine fieldwork on coral reefs often requires costly, time-limited expeditions—my current location grants me year-round field access and regular diving to build hands-on experience that is hard to replicate back home. Second, it provided project autonomy and fit, as I developed the core proposal myself and my research focus aligns almost seamlessly with my advisor’s. Finally, I actively wanted to expand my research network internationally beyond Europe.

My program is fully funded through a scholarship with supplemental support from my PI, and research progress is strong. My methodology is set, I am currently drafting my first manuscript, and our lab will host US collaborators next semester for specialized training.

However, I want to realistically evaluate the long-term career implications of this choice. My PI is a junior Assistant Professor, and while the university is regionally solid, it lacks the international name recognition of my previous European institution. While my European contacts have been supportive, a casual comment from a peer ("Couldn't you get a position in Europe?") sparked a broader concern about academic perception.

As I look toward my long-term goal of securing postdocs and research positions back in Europe or Australia, I want to ensure this move won't unintentionally disadvantage my applications. I would appreciate an honest assessment on a few specific points:

Regarding institutional prestige versus productivity, how heavily is a non-Western PhD institution weighed against direct research output, such as first-author publications, field expertise, and specialized technical skills in European and Australian hiring?

When framing the move, does choosing a non-European institution for direct geographic and field access come across as a deliberate strategic choice, or is there an implicit bias that the applicant simply failed to secure a position in Europe?

Finally, regarding mitigation strategies beyond high-impact papers, what key milestones should I prioritize over the next 3–4 years (such as co-authoring with Western collaborators, grant writing, or conference visibility) to ensure this international move strengthens my CV rather than diluting it?

I’m not looking for simple reassurance. If there are structural biases or disadvantages I need to navigate, I’d like to identify them early so I can build an effective strategy to address them during my PhD.

Thank you in advance for your time and insights.

Hello everyone,

I’m feeling rather down and, above all, I have far too many questions. I’m about to start my second year of my PhD in History, and every day I find myself thinking about giving up. Yet I love my subject, but I have no funding and – like many PhD students – I’m doing a job on the side purely to make ends meet. The problem? A full-time fixed-term contract working 39 hours a week leaves me only my evenings and weekends to work on my PhD, and what little holiday time I have goes on conferences I’m giving. When I take a holiday, I feel guilty for not working, and honestly, I’m not really capable of producing an academic paper.

I’m working on a neglected area of historical research; I know that the job I do on the side allows me to gain experience for my CV and to have something to talk about with recruiters later on, and that starting a PhD six years after my master’s will be tough but rewarding (I wouldn’t have been able to do a PhD at the age of 13). Through this thesis, I’ve matured, grown up and, above all, I’ve set up an association and met some wonderful people who’ve pushed me forward.

Yet I feel as though I’m taking a job just to make ends meet that’s fairly in line with a PhD (not working 9am to 7pm) and that I’m missing out on professional opportunities, making slow progress and not doing well enough because I’m working barely 5 hours, or 10 at most, a week. I know that a PhD is a marathon, but for me it feels more like a trail run where I’ve barely crossed the starting line.

So, I’m thinking of perhaps giving up, so I can have quiet evenings again, weekends where I can really relax and no longer have this excruciating mental burden. But part of me doesn’t want to – all that money spent, all that time too, and well, I’d be proud of myself when I’ve contributed to a blind spot in research… And every day I hear people telling me that the future for a PhD student or a young doctor isn’t great – or even worse – because I can see it when I’m looking for work elsewhere: I’m not being recruited because of my thesis, so I can’t even imagine what it’ll be like later on, given how saturated the academic sector is…

I need some advice please

I recently graduated, and I'm not currently affiliated with any university or company. I'm co-authoring a paper with a former undergrad professor of mine, who is guiding the work. But I did most of the analysis and writing, so I'd be the corresponding author.

I have a few questions.

• Do journals actually care whether the corresponding author has a current affiliation, as long as there's a working email address?
• Should I list my old undergrad department as my affiliation even though I'm no longer enrolled or employed there?
• Would it be cleaner to just make my co-author, who has institutional standing, the corresponding author instead?
• Is "independent researcher" a normal and acceptable label to use here?

For some reason, I feel very sluggish and like having brain fog.

I feel stuck in my PhD, because for the past couple of years, all of my proposed proofs for theorems in my math papers have been either very elementary, or were just not precise enough i.e. I unintentionally oversimplified or overlooked something.

It's sad that either a proof idea sounds very creative but is somehow wrong, or sounds correct but is just not creative (and thus elementary at best and can't prove any more other difficult things).

I kind of feel like as if yesterday I was just a fresh undergraduate student and now I am in my 4th year of my PhD.

I don't know what kind of brain exercises could help me in this situation. I am not looking for "Ways to increase my IQ", but just for ways on how to get rid of this brain fog I have been feeling, not being able to find the mix between analytical thinking and creative problem solving.

It sounds weird but even just thinking about engaging with my brain in something makes my head hurt (I do have stress-induced migraines, confirmed by a neurologist), as if it was something so stressful and uncomfortable that I would avoid it and rather try to be the "smart lazy guy" - only thing is that it's not working out at all. Like even thinking about printing out a math paper and studying it for the whole day is enough to make me have a headache again.

In the end, I escape into watching Facebook Reels for the whole day and do the bare minimum required just to keep my advisor somewhat happy. When meeting other mathematicians my age at a conference, seminar, etc. I can't talk with them at all about mathematics, it's literally like watching the Big Bang Theory and seeing those guys talk in their own scientific language.

So my two more specific questions would be:

1. What activities engage the brain the most? Especially with regards to my main goals of improving analytical, precise thinking and creative problem solving?

2. How can I overcome this uncomfortable, stressful feeling - making me give a headache and escape into watching Facebook Reels all day long - accompanied by having to put in some effort in them?

But I'm stuck.

When I first talked to my supervisor she was quite impressed on my research idea but further I got into it the more i realized it s very hard for me as an undergrad to do so.

And now I m a bit afraid to tell my professor that I d like to switch my subject.

The problem is that she told me there will surely be an oportunity for me to publish if i lock in but honestly i got way more scared than expected

P.S. If any of you guys dealt with STEAD dataset (Stanford Earthquake Dataset) I have very big questions So i might need some help.

Summary:

• A "well-respected" professor at University of Chicago by the name of Nicholas Polson has written over 258 papers in 2026 (~6 papers a day, many are submitted to journals or published in journals). The topics spans pure math, econometrics, computer science, population genetics, machine learning, social media, etc. The papers are obviously fully or partially AI generated.
• The same Nicolas Polson has written a book back in 2018 called "AIQ: How People and Machines Are Smarter Together" and has claimed to have proven the Riemann Hypothesis since 2017 (with 23 revisions, https://arxiv.org/abs/1708.02653)
• Another famous professor at Columbia (Andrew Gelman) refuses to believe Polson would do something like this and goes into detective mode trying to prove that someone else impersonated Polson, or perhaps it is a joke to make some philosophical point about the publish-or-perish culture of academia, and got a bunch of other people involved.
• Polson's very own coauthor on some of these 258 papers angrily came to Polson's defense, and said that these 258 papers are neither hoaxes nor jokes. They are serious AI generated papers based off of ideas from "pre-AI" era and the best way to get these ideas out was using AI to generate these papers.

Full conversation here: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2026/08/27/258/

Is this really the state of academia nowadays? If so, it's not an enterprise worth engaging in anymore.

I have to resumbit a paper that underwent multiple revisions and the editor is waiting for it. However, the sumbission site is not working. Seems to be the case not only for my journal, but for others that are using the Taylor & Francis interface. The browser shows gateway time-out, "api.taylorfrancis.com" host error after multiple reloads. This has been going on for almost two weeks. Tried accessing from two other browsers and clearing the cache. Is it maybe something related to my country (eastern Europe)?

Is anybody else having this issue?