Nice new corner! Come and chat!

[NeverEverAnythingEver]

We have our new board! Calling all cademics/aspiring academics/fed-up academics - come and chat!

1st reach job applied for. Not expecting a great deal, but it's forced me to sort out my c.v and write a covering letter. The next one I'm about to tackle asks for about 47 items, possibly including moon rock.

One such item is 1000 words explaining your approach to teaching. Now, where would begin? I have taught undergrads on and off for around 5 years during my PhD, and was not consciously aware of following any particular 'method' or 'style' (send out seminar questions in advance, ask 'big picture' questions before getting down to the details, often split them up into small groups before reconvening for discussion ...). How have you guys approached this sort of question?

Identified two or three papers that could be extracted from the thesis, so I'm going to work on just one before christmas (a big problem of mine has been flitting across too many projects ...).

Sounds like a plan God I've contrasting things about how many papers you can extract from a thesis ranging from one and one only to three if you hope to publish it as a monograph. I think I'm splitting the difference and going for two.

Nk5 thanks that's really great advice! I'll get cracking after tea!

I agree re a covering letter too. Good advice re pedagogy. I would add a brief discussion about methods. Flipping seems to be the latest thing. Do you have fellowship with the HEA or anything like that?

That's v. Helpful starting point, much appreciated! Clearly, there is some new terminology to learn.

No official award. My area tends to be v. Research orientated and us postgrads are not given much advice about specific teaching styles. Went to various dept events, but not much else offered. Just sort of assumed that being academic translates to knowledge of teaching. But can begin to expand knowledge now!

send out seminar questions in advance, ask 'big picture' questions before getting down to the details, often split them up into small groups before reconvening for discussion

I should be finishing an index for my book, but can't resist. You've said what you do here, so start from that.

What drives you to do it this way? What assumptions do you start with - you may not even have articulated them to yourself, but you need to now. What are the outcomes you aim for in each session? For example, I go into a lecture with a question, or 3 main principles I want them to understand. I go into a seminar wanting different things.

And so on. Be analytical and extrapolate from what you do. What are the assumptions about your teaching & the students' learning (they're different & not always connected, something students struggle with) that you start with?

THat should give you 1000 words that are not flannel And remember SMART (oh I can never remember the acronym)

Specific, Measurable, Assessable (or is it Achievable?) R & T I can't remember.

But make your statement concrete: give examples. Don't flannel. Those of us on selection committees can see that it's flannel we're not stupid!

First article rejected. I'm aware this is normal but I'm now really worried that this points to problems with my thesis/work more generally and I'm really doubting myself. Any tips on dealing with these feelings?

Thanks Buffy, I really appreciate the advice. Those do sound like sensible suggestions and I'm trying to deal with it constructively, but I'm having to fight against my tendency to make leaps to the worst possible conclusion. It doesn't help that I haven't passed my viva yet so I haven't got that as evidence that my work is good enough (although my supervisors have been very positive). I might ask a friend/former supervisor to look at the feedback though and get another perspective on how best to reframe the article.

Yes, get other perspective. I remember my first rejection (of my very first paper), and I read the criticism and was crushed. My supervisor read it and said, "Wow, I've never seen such a positive rejection before. Good job, you're nearly there."

And was it a Reject, we never want to see it again, or Reject, but hey if you fix these issues we might be willing to reconsider?

God, might you be able to hang onto your Uni login (and library access) a little longer? Many Uni's will let departing students keep the login for a bit longer (here, it is automatically a year) if the supervisor says, "We're still working on some things together, so they need to be able to access the system."

Just marking my place so I don't lose this. I'm in my busy patch. Does anyone have tips about losing your voice? I keep going hoarse three hours into lectures and water isn't helping.

pretty - join the club! I read recently that Arts academics (I don't know about others) submit roughly 3-4 articles for every one that is accepted.

I love the image. I'll give it a go if nothing else works!

I'm really doubting myself. Any tips on dealing with these feelings?

Being pragmatic, there's a journal somewhere that will publish, even if it is rubbish (which it probably isn't). Only a matter of £££.

Can you use any of the comments to make it stronger?

Do you have coauthors who can see better ways to present the material?

Be grateful the referee really stopped & thought about what you were saying. If they were willing to read it & even comment, it's not truly awful. Else you would have waited 6 months & the PJJ would have shoved it back saying "We can't find anyone even willing to read this slop."

One of my colleagues talks about the paper that was rejected THIRTEEN times before getting into a decent journal. It's labeled 'high access' on the journal website & google scholar has it down as 13 citations already (respectable when it only came out 14 months ago).

Hello all, so had my viva and it was ok....but I have major corrections.12 months to do them and no second viva which I'm pleased about, but tbh that's the main positive thing I can take from the experience. Got mixed emotions really, trying not to feel like a failure. Plus I think I 'get' the majority of their criticisms but some I'm going to need to see written down as was a bit daunted by them tbh.

Finally - I'm not sure how to refer to my current state on my cv/ job application what do you advise?

God well done on no corrections

Good advice on handling rejection folks :)

Miffy are you in a post, or doing some sessional teaching? If the latter then "part time lecturer" maybe? or whatever your role is officially?

I have a couple of questions. Both moany.

1. If you are a parent of school aged children, and are in a permanent academic post, how often if at all would you be able to take the whole week off for half term? Never? Every half term should you wish? Once every couple of years but only in the summer term? You just pretend to work from home every half term?

Our department "standard" is that academics can't take half term because it's in university term, yet those in other departments do so. We have finally had an official "ruling" from HoD that we can take a day at a time without "permission" in term time. Admin staff can take holiday in term time. I have not yet asked, to be honest, about half term, because both our DCs are preschool age. However, I had a family thing coming up that could have been in week 1 which is a school week and asked to take that week on the basis that I wouldn't be taking school weeks in the future when DC1 goes to school. I was given permission on the basis that this was very much a one-off and would not be repeated (as it turned out, it was moved to the previous week i.e. not a Uni term week).

1. If you had a R&R for the THIRD time from the same journal for the same paper, would you complain to the editor about not doing their job (and in particular, not filtering/commenting on reviews that said the first time "Not enough on X!" and are now saying "Too much on X!", and also saying stupid things like "well, OK, your other paper is out now, but you need to summarise it in this paper [because people can't possibly look up another paper] and also you need to make the article much shorter because it's too long, while still adding this stuff I want you to add". And also "oh those examples you give of Y are too long and confusing" and then in the next review "why are there no examples of Y".)

Or would you just tug your forelock and to the changes even though they are crazy? Or go to another journal (not much scope, though. This is the People's Journal of Judean and Nazarene Studies and the only alternative that covers the intersection is the Nazaro-Judean Journal which is much less impactful, not that the PJJNS is particularly impactful to start with).

name change Sorry I wasn't clear, I was just meaning my 'PhD state' of needing major corrections/resubmission. I suppose I am still a PhD student at the end of the day :/
Sadly I am unemployed at the moment so can't cover it with anything else

I'm not a lecturer so not had that experience of annual leave

Journal article - I would go for middle ground of the change you are able to make and commenting that there have been different phases of corrections.

Buffy love your advice! :) It is much easier said than done, but I think it takes a while to get used to receiving rejections/criticism.

Miffy, congratulations! I know it probably doesn't feel like it, but you do have cause to celebrate. At the very least, you don't have to undergo another viva. And you may get your corrections done much quicker than you anticipate. All the best with them!

namechange on your second question about reviewers, goodness, that must be really frustrating! Sorry I don't have the answer, but just wanted to empathize.

Congrats,miffy! As others have said, this is an accomplishment. Saying they don't need another viva means they are confident your work is PhD quality, just want some specific changes. Good question about status -- I don't rightly know. As an examiner, we did say "Congratulations, Dr X" when we gave a similar result. Perhaps ask your supervisor? Or 'PhD Your Uni 2016 (Viva complete, corrections being undertaken)'? Perhaps someone with more experience can help.

namechange I think it must depend on the Uni. I've had staff members request that I schedule them for teaching during only one of the two weeks of half term, and I am happy to comply. I assume they are at home during that time, but probably still in contact via email. I also assume they aren't working particularly hard! If you can manage your schedule through small personal interactions such that you don't have anything that requires your presence, staying home and light working is probably doable. If you want to go away with the kids somewhere, you probably would need some actual holiday permission.

For the second question, I'd pick which of the conflicting reviews I agreed with, do those corrections and explain that you're not responding to reviewer A because you agree with reviewer B. You can also 'argue' with the editor about why changes should not be made. At some point they will stop sending it to reviewers, which I would hope would be this one! Three sets of reviews is the most I've ever got from one journal, and yes, at that point, the contradictions really pile up (although I really appreciated the one reviewer who wrote "This is the third time I've seen this manuscript. I thought it was publishable the first time, and I don't understand why I keep getting it back.")

murmuration the current set of reviews is not exactly contradictory, though, it just contradicts previous reviews.

So at THIS stage (3 reviews in) one reviewer is just now saying they want it split into two papers.
One of the reviewers says they think the methodology is too long, but they want an extra table (for data which has been in the paper since the first version, but only now they are asking for this table. After three reviews).

Etc. etc. Should the editor really be letting these suggestions go out at a third review - which could ALL have been made at the first review?

And of course the first review said "more detail needed on background" and now the reviewers are saying "you don't need any of this background".

So what I'm wondering is, can I ask the editor do blooming well DO THEIR JOB and tell me to ignore recommendations that should have been made at earlier reviews (i.e. they contradict the lack of recommendation made at earlier reviews...), rather than just send them out and shrug their shoulders.

Maybe something like "as this is the third set of reviews and I have now been asked to revise and resubmit three times, please could you prioritise which of the recommendations I should be following, bearing in mind that the recommendations A through J contradict the following requests from previous submissions and/or could have been introduced at previous reviews".

namechange I've had a similar problem with two separate journals - both low profile and chosen just to get the stuff out there quickly and simply (or so I thought), now coming up to 2 years since submitted on one. My last edit I just sent a covering email saying I was now happy with the article and not prepared to make any further changes. You don't have to agree with everything the reviewer says. I've been advised to send through a chart summarising the reviewer's recommendations and saying what (if anything) I've changed and why. Seems to work. In the end the quality of the article is your responsibility.

I sent one article to a low-ish profile journal and it's sat there for over a year. Almost tempted to write to them to ask who they think they are. Especially as I've had articles published in better journals since then.