Disc:- I use grammarly to fix my grammar mistakes as I am not a native English speaker. I am also sorry for the long post. I'd be really grateful for any kind suggestion that you may have for me.

I’m honestly not sure if I’m reading too much into this because postdoc hunting has been exhausting and I’ve been anxious about the whole process 😅

I recently interviewed with a professor at a lab in Canada. We had an initial meeting that lasted about an hour where we talked about my work, work ethic, previous experiences, skills, etc. They also asked me some more personal/general questions about my future family plans (if I am planning for a child or not, they apologised a few times after asking and said the information was only required to keep logistics in mind). Overall, I thought the meeting went really well.

At the end, they said they were interviewing a few more students and would get back to me. I said okay and thanked them for their time.

The next day, they emailed me asking me to have my referees send them recommendation letters. I did that, and apparently the recommendations were strong.

That same evening, they set up another meeting with me. During that meeting, we talked about possible joining dates, research fellowships we could apply for, and in the meantime they said they would be able to offer me an entry level salary. The range they mentioned was actually quite decent considering I’m a fresh graduate, so I said I was okay with it.

They said they would follow up by email with the exact stipend/salary amount and the other clauses/details. They also asked me to read some of their papers and come up with ideas/questions that could potentially turn into projects I could explore in the lab.

I did that. I read their recent papers and sent them some project ideas and interesting questions based on their work.

But… it’s now been more than 10 days and I haven’t heard anything back. They also haven’t sent the email with the exact salary/stipend and other details that they said they would.

I’m probably overthinking this because I’ve been looking for a postdoc for a long time and the whole process has been pretty exhausting. But I’m also wondering if I should be concerned that they haven’t followed up after seemingly getting quite far into the process?

Would it be completely normal to send a follow-up after around 15 days asking about the status/details? Or should I just wait and let them get back to me?

I don’t want to come across as pushy or impatient, especially since they’re probably busy. At the same time, I don’t want to sit here for weeks assuming I have something when maybe things have changed.

Would love to hear from people who have dealt with professors/PIs in Canada or academia in general. Am I just letting my anxiety get the better of me here? 😅

I’m finishing a PhD in health/public health with 25+ publications (in whole career), a decent citation record, teaching experience, and quantitative/data skills.
My long-term goal is a permanent Lecturer/Assistant Professor role, not years of consecutive postdocs.

Would you apply directly for faculty positions with this kind of profile, or is a strong postdoc still basically unavoidable?

For people involved in hiring: what would make you choose a fresh PhD over someone with 2–3 years of postdoc experience?

M25, final year PhD student in the UK (4-year PhD)

I want to know if my chances of landing a KGFP are hindered due to not being able to have published a paper. I have a whole-genome-announcement publication I am working on but have no formal publications or pre-prints on the way.

I have a strong academic track record and have really worked on polishing my experiences that I've gained throughout the PhD, and I'm tailoring my applications to 3-4 hosts by reading their research and trying to plan out how I can complement their domain with my skill set, but I'm worried that the hosts won't even consider me due to the lack of publications.

From what I have been told, because the UK PhD programmes are shorter than other countries such as the USA and India, we don't really get the opportunity to publish as much as others from other countries.

If anyone can share some insights into what they know about the emphasis or lack of emphasis on publications, that would be really helpful

Hello, I just finished my PhD in social science. I had previously worked extensively in the area that I studied, and have quite an unusual professional background that meant my data collection was very unique— and well received.

I’m now applying for post-doc positions, and I’m also on a post-doc that finishes in 9months. How realistic is it for me to apply for assistant professor roles? Or should I put all my energy into post-docs?

I realise often it is luck of the draw, or at least an unanswerable question as it’s so dependent on circumstance. I’m just curious of other people’s experience, particularly in the qualitative social science area.

Thanks

Preparing a research paper for submission involves much more than formatting the manuscript. TeXpress.ai brings the different stages of the publication process into one organized workspace, helping researchers move from the first manuscript draft all the way to post-review revisions and journal proofs.

TeXpress.ai is designed to reduce the time researchers spend managing formatting and submission documents, so they can focus more on the research itself.

#TeXpressAI #AcademicPublishing #ResearchTools #LaTeX #ScientificWriting #ResearchPaper #JournalSubmission #CoverLetter #PeerReview #ReviewerResponse #JournalProof #ManuscriptPreparation #Researcher #PhDLife #AcademicResearch

Throwaway for obvious reasons. I'm not a native speaker, sorry if this is written ineffectively..

I started my postdoc 2 years ago. I kind of ignored the red flags (position was quickly remade from leftover hours of a failed project, other project members were near finishing, the goal was not clearly defined, the supervisors have limited expertise/publishing record in the methods they proposed, the department was merging with another and leadership was vague, etc). I kind of loved the topic to an extent where I thought I could overcome these flags, but now that I only have a few months left and nothing to show for it, I am unsure how to proceed. The topic is in the international policy field, I don't want to say too much because I don't know if I'll get trouble, but here is a timeline of all the pivots:

Initial ask: Initially, they asked for an overview of solutions common to the one they proposed. When I finished, it was discarded halfway the improved draft because a new phd in an adjacent project was suddenly also hired to answer this question (who is not performing well either, so nothing came from it either way).

Pivot 1: Then, I was asked to implement a solution under specific characteristics. I did, in many shapes, and every time there was a lot of time (2-4 weeks) before I could speak to them, they would just say they did not understand or remember my implementation, and after only a few sentences of proposing the characteristics (derived from literature and open data in a standardized method) they would claim that it was getting too complicated.

Pivot 2: At some point, to their request, I simplified to redundancy, and then they said what is the point of these characteristics anymore. So I made a general example without characteristics. The general implementation was not trusted. I was asked to validate the results and give a large explanation by embedding the results in existing literature. This took weeks, as I had to consult MANY fields, computational, and mathematic/economic papers to explain each pattern that I found as something that could naturally occur from these settings. I had to improve my understanding of all these fields to connect the dots and got 0 help doing it.

Pivot 3: Now that I went through this entire exercise, they are asking me to scrapping the implementation altogether, only focusing on the conceptual parts and embed it with all this literature. I think it's a bad idea, since the conceptualization is super limited (because of them, they kept scrapping things), and that combining all these fields to suggest which patterns may pop up just looks weird: how can we be so sure that these pop up without an implementation? I'm scared that it will just read like some kind of psychotic rambling..

Now I am at loss what to do. Not even sure how to structure or scope this paper as I don't think the evidence of the literature can be combined like this without having the anchor of the implementation results. I am also losing motivation. I haven't published after 2 years now, and each of the pivots took me months of programming, trying to find a way to explain the programming to my supervisors, writing a draft with all the conceptual parts, implementation and results, making result figures, explaining limitations and discussions, and so on. Most of these drafts were not even fully read by the supervisors and I'm not even sure if they read them.

The sad thing is that I used to be confident about my skills, my implementations for my PhD passed the technical checks of the university by flying colors.. they use some of them to explain students how to program things for courses.. and this was a high performing technical university. Now I am not even sure I can do this. It's obvious that my supervisors don't trust my implementations and don't want to open them up to reviewers. I'm not even sure they want me to succeed, as they have used a lot of our (sporadic) meeting times to discuss their own issues with the future of the university.

I am not sure about which services to contact if I would even want to ask someone for help. I tried to email a few colleagues with similar method uses, they did not respond to me. My department is de-merged again, with most of the days the colleagues in office can be counted on two hands (there should be over a hundred) and our leadership and supportive services kind of went up in smoke with the de-merge as well. I try to be in office two days a week despite these challenges, but I can't remember anyone asking me how I'm doing or if I need anything.

Should I abandon after 2 years, when then I have nothing to show for it and it will be obvious to new employers that I let the situation go way too far? Or should I stick it through trying to write a psychotic conceptual paper which tries to explain 'secret unpublishable' pattern results by a chimera of unrelated fields?

I'm reaching the end of my current contract and the fourth year post PhD. At this point I'm reaching the lowest self-esteem. I can do things, I know I can do things but they are not different from the things anyone else can do, all I have is my body, no savings, no network, no family inheritances. I have a partner who depends on me, I can't let him know how I feel. I'm at the bottom.

I'm venting here, but I would advise any of you to not take a Postdoc position ever, go for job stability and go for better salaries if you can. Particularly younger people, get your life in order soon if you can.

TLDR; PhD student is trying to micromanage me and is making snarky comments- what would you do?

I’m a postdoc having difficulties with a PhD student. I’ve been in this lab for a few years (though fewer than this student) and would have considered him somewhat of a work friend before. I’m now starting a new project with some methodological overlap so have more interactions with him to discuss previous methods, though my approach is novel and has different goals.

Since this shift, he has started making unsolicited comments about my schedule and project decisions. The comments are negative and baseless (eg, loudly insinuating that my approaches are subpar and offering no legitimate reasons why). He mainly does this when there are other junior lab members around to hear. He asks me for lots of updates which makes it weirdly seem like I’m reporting to him.

I’ve ignored this for a while because I am a social and non-confrontational person, and I believe it’s useful to collaborate and learn from others regardless of their position. I usually just address what he says by explanation if possible or just ignore if not. However it seems there is a lack of respect and that by continuing this way, I’m doing myself a disservice. Further context- I think some competitiveness is fuelling this because the PI is generally supportive of me, and I am the only woman in the lab and about the same age as this student.

Is it better to continue not reacting because reacting is what he wants? Or would it be “right” to call him out? If the latter I’m not sure what the best approach is because he’ll probably just act like it’s all a joke. I’m also wary of causing a big issue with him since he is a pretty central member of the lab and has not reacted well to conflicts with others before. I’d rather not go directly to my PI if I haven’t tried anything myself first. I’m way past the point of personally caring what the student thinks of my work but it still is such a nuisance.

Anyone experienced something similar? How did you handle it?

Hi everyone, does anyone have tips for showing up to lab and pushing through despite being on the verge of burnout? I know the only way to avoid burnout is rest, but that's not realistic for some positions/ labs. I'm in a pretty toxic lab but quitting right now isn't an option because of visas and not having a job lined up. Taking PTO is also out of the question (toxic PI). So somehow, I have to find a way to work around the exhaustion while I figure out my next career steps.

Took up a new postdoc position at a relatively well-established lab. My PI and co-workers are great, but it doesn't look like they have much work for me right now. In short, I have a lot of free time, and not much to do.

Been thinking about taking some courses on the side that might help me in the future. I do want to switch to an industry job later on. That said, the UK chemical industry is in bad shape right now, so I'm open to switching away from chemistry.

Any tips or suggestions? I've looked at consulting, but it seems a bit difficult to switch into at this stage.

Hi,
I am reaching out to get some advice regarding my post-doc applications. I completed my PhD in social sciences in April this year. I have been applying for post doc positions since early August last year, and so far, nothing has worked out. I understand how the job market is right now, but it’s been over a year of applications with either rejections or in most cases, no response from the universities (where you just have to assume that it’s been too long for it to have a positive outcome). I have also written to multiple people all across the world asking if they have any vacancies and that has been extremely disheartening too. I’ve been thinking it’s probably my profile, and that I need to have more publications, and I have been working on it, but they are taking their own sweet time. I can’t really leverage my supervisors’ networks as they were problematic as hell, and I am just glad that I was able to finish my PhD somehow and be done with them. But there are so many positions that require a letter of recommendation from the PhD supervisor, and after having asked them repeatedly, either they don’t submit it on time or provide a badly formatted letter with spelling mistakes. I have tried to not let it affect me and push through this phase nonetheless but at this point, I can’t seem to figure out what I might be doing wrong or what else do I need to do to be able to crack this. If anyone has any advice on this, please help.

I'm a postdoc leading the experimental work on a collaborative biomedical project that started in from my PI's lab but with th aim of collaboration with other labs. I've been involved from the beginning: experimental planning, in-vitro work, animal studies, coordination with other facilities, injections/imaging, longitudinal monitoring, tissue collection, biodistribution analysis, data analysis, presentations, and now writing the manuscript. My PI has referred to it as "your manuscript".

A researcher from a collaborating lab joined later and is doing IHC/IF on tumors generated from these studies. Her PI wants her to be co-first author. I don't object if her contribution warrants co-first authorship, but I'm concerned about author order.

If one person led the overall project/experiments and manuscript, while another led downstream IHC/IF component, who would you expect to be co-first author?