Datasets:

stanfordnlp

/

SHP

like 273

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qyj1l

h0qtn8w

I write while I do the research. Even if things change, there is still a draft of the Related Work, Methods and Results that I can go to immediately when finished and continue writing. I write all over the place on the paper because of this strategy.

A solid formula for the structure

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rg0yc

h0r1ftw

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

ALWAYS figures first. Figures tell the story. If you feel like you're missing a panel of a figure because you don't have that data, put a white box as a placeholder. Then, do that experiment (and hope that the data agrees with your other data). Repeat until all figures are finished. Then write the other parts. And you should start this process when you feel like your story is 50 - 75% done.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rg0yc

h0qpff6

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

Confidence

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rg0yc

h0r3d4k

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

I start with the research questions/hypothesis then literature review to show the gaps that highlight my research questions. Then I move to the methodology and results, making sure the research questions are addressed well in those sections. From my experience writing and reviewing papers, these are what will drive the decision to accept/revise/reject the paper, so I work on them first to make sure rest fo the sections align with these sections. Intro/motivation is next and then I work on discussions and limitations. Conclusions and abstract are the last things I write because these are probably what reviewers will read first and you want these to highlight everything on your paper . I feel that this sequence helps me focus more on the contributions of my work and keeps that chain of thought throughout the paper.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r97wm

h0rg0yc

I make a PowerPoint slide deck. It creates a lot of clarity on how to frame the story and identify weak points, providing direction for additional experiments to strengthen the case.

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rg0yc

h0qusnz

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

I try to write really good notes as I work on the project. Why we decided to do it (incl relevant papers it's building on), what our goal/question is, all the details about the method & analysis, etc. The first draft is just making that into full sentences and then you're just editing.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qtn8w

h0rg0yc

A solid formula for the structure

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rg0yc

h0r1tcl

This may not work for everyone, but I have a big love for presenting. So I’ll make my figures and get them all nailed down, write my methods like normal, and basically set up a presentation outline. Then, I’ll stream-of-consciousness word vomit on to the page as if I were talking to an audience. I take a day or more away, come back, and read it out loud to myself to identify any gaps in information or illogical jumps, to edit grammar and spelling, and just generally clean up. It makes for really speedy writing and gets you to practice “presenting” as well.

Saving this post!

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qpff6

h0r1ftw

Confidence

ALWAYS figures first. Figures tell the story. If you feel like you're missing a panel of a figure because you don't have that data, put a white box as a placeholder. Then, do that experiment (and hope that the data agrees with your other data). Repeat until all figures are finished. Then write the other parts. And you should start this process when you feel like your story is 50 - 75% done.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r1ftw

h0qusnz

ALWAYS figures first. Figures tell the story. If you feel like you're missing a panel of a figure because you don't have that data, put a white box as a placeholder. Then, do that experiment (and hope that the data agrees with your other data). Repeat until all figures are finished. Then write the other parts. And you should start this process when you feel like your story is 50 - 75% done.

I try to write really good notes as I work on the project. Why we decided to do it (incl relevant papers it's building on), what our goal/question is, all the details about the method & analysis, etc. The first draft is just making that into full sentences and then you're just editing.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qtn8w

h0r1ftw

A solid formula for the structure

ALWAYS figures first. Figures tell the story. If you feel like you're missing a panel of a figure because you don't have that data, put a white box as a placeholder. Then, do that experiment (and hope that the data agrees with your other data). Repeat until all figures are finished. Then write the other parts. And you should start this process when you feel like your story is 50 - 75% done.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0s7qyp

h0qpff6

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

Confidence

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r3d4k

h0s7qyp

I start with the research questions/hypothesis then literature review to show the gaps that highlight my research questions. Then I move to the methodology and results, making sure the research questions are addressed well in those sections. From my experience writing and reviewing papers, these are what will drive the decision to accept/revise/reject the paper, so I work on them first to make sure rest fo the sections align with these sections. Intro/motivation is next and then I work on discussions and limitations. Conclusions and abstract are the last things I write because these are probably what reviewers will read first and you want these to highlight everything on your paper . I feel that this sequence helps me focus more on the contributions of my work and keeps that chain of thought throughout the paper.

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0s7qyp

h0r97wm

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

I make a PowerPoint slide deck. It creates a lot of clarity on how to frame the story and identify weak points, providing direction for additional experiments to strengthen the case.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0s7qyp

h0qusnz

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

I try to write really good notes as I work on the project. Why we decided to do it (incl relevant papers it's building on), what our goal/question is, all the details about the method & analysis, etc. The first draft is just making that into full sentences and then you're just editing.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qtn8w

h0s7qyp

A solid formula for the structure

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0s7qyp

h0r1tcl

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

Saving this post!

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rvi2e

h0s7qyp

I'm not in STEM but like STEM my field uses LaTeX which I've found extremely useful for paper writing. I often think of bits of language that work in different parts of the paper and keep them along with notes and possible sources commented out so they can be incorporated later. With Word I felt more pressure to write in order instead of letting my mind go all over the place, since there's no hiding content.

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0s1s0h

h0s7qyp

Lab meetings are your friend here. I have the advantage of being a member of a lab where people work on pretty different projects and are unafraid to ask candid and hard-hitting questions. In my experience, preparing the data I'd like to publish for a 20 minute lab meeting forces you to 1. structure your presentation in a way that can quickly be ported to paper when the time comes, 2. assemble the bare minimum background knowledge required to make the audience understand the relevance of the work, and 3. receive valuable feedback on how data/figures are presented. Basically this minimizes both the time spent organizing thoughts as well as the length of the paper (the exception is Materials and Methods which nobody reads anyways). Basically, think of a scientific research paper as being the readable version of your talk, not the other way around.

I'm an ECR (postdoc) so I'm still polishing my writing. I was lucky to work with very prolific co-authors who taught me this approach and so far it's the best for me. I always find it daunting to begin a paper. 3 key points: 1) Break everything down to the smallest task, 2) start writing and annotating as early as you can and try to be consistent, and 3) set clear goals with your co-authors early on, I find turn-over is more important than "perfection". Starting from scratch is always daunting for me, so I have a word template with the classic IMRaD structure (see below). This gives me a skeleton and feels more "manageable" than a white page, even though I don't know which will be the target journal. I scribble down the Methods section and add relevant publications for the intro and discussion as soon as I start the project. Once I have the results and I know the target journal, I change my template to the journal's structure. Having a couple of examples is useful to identify the overall length of each section (e.g., some journals prefer 3 paragraphs in the introduction, others 4 or even 5; same with the discussion, some use 1 closing paragraph \[conclusion\] other journals just 3 paragraphs). Then, I create subsections with "*paragraph topic*" which I remove after a couple of draft versions. This approach helps me to keep in mind the logical progression of the paper. I also use "*sentence topic*", just in my words not worrying about grammar nor style to start putting words on the page. I usually write 5-6 sentences for each paragraph. Then I add the figures. Figures are super important, so I usually have a PowerPoint with several iterations of the same analysis but presented in different ways. So, I begin with the Methods section, then Results, Intro, Discussion, and finally the Abstract. The abstract is just a well-thought summary of your publication so I find it easier to write once I have the other sections ready (writing the abstract is just another way of writing your paper in 250 words, it has its own structure). After that, it is just a matter of polishing and working with your co-authors. One issue I constantly have is to know when the manuscript is "good enough" to be submitted, this is when senior co-authors are key to just tell you to stop and submit it. I'm a veterinarian, so papers aren't a big task during your undergrad. I had to learn from scratch when I started my PhD, don't be afraid of bad reviews and try to maximise the times your co-authors provide feedback, I learnt a lot even though it was kinda painful and discouraging in the beginning. I hope this is useful :) This is how my template looks: **Target journal info:** type and length of the article **Title1**: \[the title I prefer\] **Title2/3/4:** \[alternatives\] **Abstract:** \[Number of words\] **1. Introduction** * Paragraph1: Intro to the field * Paragraph2: Specific field details and intro to the project * Paragraph3: Why's the project relevant to the field? * Paragraph4: Closing and the relevance of the study **2. Methods (begin as soon as you can with this)** * Paragraph1: General description * Paragraph2: Location/case study * Paragraph3: Data collection * Paragraph4: Data analysis **3. Results (ID key results and keep it to the point)** * Paragraph1: Main result * Paragraph2: Result2 * Paragraph3: Any extras **4. Discussion (3 arguments max)** * Paragraph1: General recap and key results in context * Paragraph2: Result2 in context * Paragraph3: The project in the field's context * Paragraph4: Caveats/Issues/What's next? * Paragraph5: Closing **Extras (or in a different document):** * co-author details (not in order) * funding details * acknowledgements I always have 3 documents by the end of the project: 1. The word doc with the manuscript 2. A Powerpoint with figures 3. A word document with all the paragraphs we removed

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0sz6uo

h0r3d4k

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

I start with the research questions/hypothesis then literature review to show the gaps that highlight my research questions. Then I move to the methodology and results, making sure the research questions are addressed well in those sections. From my experience writing and reviewing papers, these are what will drive the decision to accept/revise/reject the paper, so I work on them first to make sure rest fo the sections align with these sections. Intro/motivation is next and then I work on discussions and limitations. Conclusions and abstract are the last things I write because these are probably what reviewers will read first and you want these to highlight everything on your paper . I feel that this sequence helps me focus more on the contributions of my work and keeps that chain of thought throughout the paper.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r97wm

h0sz6uo

I make a PowerPoint slide deck. It creates a lot of clarity on how to frame the story and identify weak points, providing direction for additional experiments to strengthen the case.

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qusnz

h0sz6uo

I try to write really good notes as I work on the project. Why we decided to do it (incl relevant papers it's building on), what our goal/question is, all the details about the method & analysis, etc. The first draft is just making that into full sentences and then you're just editing.

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qtn8w

h0sz6uo

A solid formula for the structure

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0sz6uo

h0r1tcl

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

Saving this post!

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0rvi2e

h0sz6uo

I'm not in STEM but like STEM my field uses LaTeX which I've found extremely useful for paper writing. I often think of bits of language that work in different parts of the paper and keep them along with notes and possible sources commented out so they can be incorporated later. With Word I felt more pressure to write in order instead of letting my mind go all over the place, since there's no hiding content.

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0sz6uo

h0s1s0h

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

Lab meetings are your friend here. I have the advantage of being a member of a lab where people work on pretty different projects and are unafraid to ask candid and hard-hitting questions. In my experience, preparing the data I'd like to publish for a 20 minute lab meeting forces you to 1. structure your presentation in a way that can quickly be ported to paper when the time comes, 2. assemble the bare minimum background knowledge required to make the audience understand the relevance of the work, and 3. receive valuable feedback on how data/figures are presented. Basically this minimizes both the time spent organizing thoughts as well as the length of the paper (the exception is Materials and Methods which nobody reads anyways). Basically, think of a scientific research paper as being the readable version of your talk, not the other way around.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0sz6uo

h0s8kdp

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

How long does it take to write an academic paper on average? Curious UG student here

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0sedm8

h0sz6uo

I am far more productive now that I’ve hit my stride as a postdoc than I was during my PhD years (or first year of postdoc), and it’s for two reasons: 1) I have my methods down pat so the research part is far shorter. No writing code from scratch and minor modifications to get plots how I like them, so what took me months before is now just a few weeks. 2) My supervisor now is the type to make small edits/ change phrases as he goes in the document. My PhD one made me do everything myself (which honestly your PhD adviser SHOULD), and I’m still doing the majority of work, but not doing 100% of it is amazing and lets me focus on more gnarly edits.

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0su950

h0sz6uo

Lots of great advice here, but what I think hasn't been stressed enough is language. Be concise, but comprehensible!!! Most reviewers have very limited time, so making the reading experience as easy as possible will put them in a good mood and increase your chances of getting accepted.

Lots of good comments here already but adding a few because why not: * Schedule 3-5 days when you are literally doing nothing else other than the paper. No meetings, no experiments, just figures/writing. It usually takes me hours to get "in the zone" but once I'm there, the paper gets done super quickly. I've never had a manuscript take more than a week to write when I set it up this way and tell everyone to go away, block email, etc. * Bullet point the main idea of any paragraph before writing it. Also, please no more than 5 sentences per paragraph and no more than one or two commas/"and"s per sentence. If you need more than that, you're probably rambling. * Secret magic trick: once you finish writing a paragraph, take the last sentence and move it to the beginning of the paragraph. Your paper is now 100% more skimmable = better! * Whatever order works best for you, but I do results (figures, bullet points for each paragraph, then text), discussion, intro, methods. * Definitely use LaTeX. Use overleaf if you don't want to set up the compiler on your computer. * Coauthors - give definite deadlines, and send many reminders. But in practice, just do all their work for them and coauthor them anyways. Almost all coauthors are dead weight at the writing stage. The few who aren't are gold. * Proofreading - have some text-to-speech software read the paper to you. It takes some time but its worth doing once. You'll immediately notice typos and cringe-bad sections :)

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qusnz

h0r3d4k

I try to write really good notes as I work on the project. Why we decided to do it (incl relevant papers it's building on), what our goal/question is, all the details about the method & analysis, etc. The first draft is just making that into full sentences and then you're just editing.

I start with the research questions/hypothesis then literature review to show the gaps that highlight my research questions. Then I move to the methodology and results, making sure the research questions are addressed well in those sections. From my experience writing and reviewing papers, these are what will drive the decision to accept/revise/reject the paper, so I work on them first to make sure rest fo the sections align with these sections. Intro/motivation is next and then I work on discussions and limitations. Conclusions and abstract are the last things I write because these are probably what reviewers will read first and you want these to highlight everything on your paper . I feel that this sequence helps me focus more on the contributions of my work and keeps that chain of thought throughout the paper.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r3d4k

h0qtn8w

I start with the research questions/hypothesis then literature review to show the gaps that highlight my research questions. Then I move to the methodology and results, making sure the research questions are addressed well in those sections. From my experience writing and reviewing papers, these are what will drive the decision to accept/revise/reject the paper, so I work on them first to make sure rest fo the sections align with these sections. Intro/motivation is next and then I work on discussions and limitations. Conclusions and abstract are the last things I write because these are probably what reviewers will read first and you want these to highlight everything on your paper . I feel that this sequence helps me focus more on the contributions of my work and keeps that chain of thought throughout the paper.

A solid formula for the structure

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r3d4k

h0r1tcl

I start with the research questions/hypothesis then literature review to show the gaps that highlight my research questions. Then I move to the methodology and results, making sure the research questions are addressed well in those sections. From my experience writing and reviewing papers, these are what will drive the decision to accept/revise/reject the paper, so I work on them first to make sure rest fo the sections align with these sections. Intro/motivation is next and then I work on discussions and limitations. Conclusions and abstract are the last things I write because these are probably what reviewers will read first and you want these to highlight everything on your paper . I feel that this sequence helps me focus more on the contributions of my work and keeps that chain of thought throughout the paper.

Saving this post!

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0qusnz

h0r97wm

I try to write really good notes as I work on the project. Why we decided to do it (incl relevant papers it's building on), what our goal/question is, all the details about the method & analysis, etc. The first draft is just making that into full sentences and then you're just editing.

I make a PowerPoint slide deck. It creates a lot of clarity on how to frame the story and identify weak points, providing direction for additional experiments to strengthen the case.

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r97wm

h0qtn8w

I make a PowerPoint slide deck. It creates a lot of clarity on how to frame the story and identify weak points, providing direction for additional experiments to strengthen the case.

A solid formula for the structure

nt8nxt

askacademia_train

People who write scientific research papers quickly, what’s your secret? For academic research papers, what are your best tips and tricks for being both efficient and doing high quality work? What order do you write the paper in, and how do you keep from going off on too many tangents? How do you deal efficiently with co-authors?

h0r1tcl

h0r97wm

Saving this post!

I make a PowerPoint slide deck. It creates a lot of clarity on how to frame the story and identify weak points, providing direction for additional experiments to strengthen the case.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2j6mgk

h2ix3bn

Cut the meeting times in half, move others to email or slide updates and meeting every other week, have a conversation with your PI about overburdening, and start blocking time on your calendar for your priorities.

Yeah, sounds like you got a case of overburdening. It's kind of an occupational hazard, but can be a problem nonetheless. I'd recommend that you write a template declination email (e.g. for seminars) stating that you need to make time for work on your own project and thus won't be able to attend this time. Send this to the seminar/JC organizers for the ones where you're not actually presenting yourself (which I assume will be the majority). Do this for a week or two, and see whether anyone is bothered by your absence. Chances are it's going to be fine.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2j6mgk

h2j5nte

Cut the meeting times in half, move others to email or slide updates and meeting every other week, have a conversation with your PI about overburdening, and start blocking time on your calendar for your priorities.

Solution: You need to start saying no to a lot of things.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2j4ra1

h2j6mgk

I only read the title. ABSOLUTELY NO is the answer... Meetings are a plague on productivity... edit: typo

Cut the meeting times in half, move others to email or slide updates and meeting every other week, have a conversation with your PI about overburdening, and start blocking time on your calendar for your priorities.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2ixd7g

h2j6mgk

No. :)

Cut the meeting times in half, move others to email or slide updates and meeting every other week, have a conversation with your PI about overburdening, and start blocking time on your calendar for your priorities.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2jd1jg

h2j5nte

Also how could you possibly mentor 15 students well? This sounds like a bad situation for everyone involved.

Solution: You need to start saying no to a lot of things.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2jd1jg

h2j4ra1

Also how could you possibly mentor 15 students well? This sounds like a bad situation for everyone involved.

I only read the title. ABSOLUTELY NO is the answer... Meetings are a plague on productivity... edit: typo

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2ixd7g

h2jd1jg

No. :)

Also how could you possibly mentor 15 students well? This sounds like a bad situation for everyone involved.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2j5nte

h2j4ra1

Solution: You need to start saying no to a lot of things.

I only read the title. ABSOLUTELY NO is the answer... Meetings are a plague on productivity... edit: typo

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2j5nte

h2ixd7g

Solution: You need to start saying no to a lot of things.

No. :)

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2ixd7g

h2j4ra1

No. :)

I only read the title. ABSOLUTELY NO is the answer... Meetings are a plague on productivity... edit: typo

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2ixd7g

h2jjs7p

No. :)

Are the meetings useful? Can you ask your students to send you written weekly updates/slides instead and then just spend 15min reviewing it and emailing back? That gives them practice writing and a nice record of their work as well. Then make like a shared office hour time for if they wanted to discuss the email in person? Zoom lets you setup waiting rooms that work really well for that. Also discord/slack lets you type chat in real time but also lets you decide to wait to respond, that may be better than zoom as you could multitask several students at same time. I had a super easily distracted student once and we ended up maintaining a kanban board that she updated and I helped her rank items on, my supervisor liked it so much he made one for a larger project I was on with him. It worked well for seeing yes they are progressing or no they've gone off into the wilderness. Also helped with the invisible tasks A is less important than B, but C is still yet more important but cannot be done until A is done.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2lllrq

h2kvqeb

Gonna give you some real talk. Having meetings is easy. Leading your own projects is hard. Save the mentoring for when you land the TT position.

Learning to say no is difficult but necessary. You need to look after your own work (research and write) primarily, and I’m writing this more for my own benefit really!

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2lllrq

h2ixd7g

Gonna give you some real talk. Having meetings is easy. Leading your own projects is hard. Save the mentoring for when you land the TT position.

No. :)

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2lllrq

h2k46dw

Gonna give you some real talk. Having meetings is easy. Leading your own projects is hard. Save the mentoring for when you land the TT position.

You are spreading yourself thin. Drop some of those projects.

o4s2eo

askacademia_train

If I have 6 hours of Zoom meetings everyday, can I really be expected to get anything else done? Postdoc in STEM completely overburdened with meetings at the moment. I'm (co-)supervising 15 student projects, spanning the bachelor to PhD level with students in 4 different countries, on top of which I have all of my normal collaborations that I should make progress on. On top of that, there's seminars and journal clubs everyday. It's just impossible to get anything done at the moment! /rant

h2jetno

h2ixd7g

I’m going to go ahead and say yes. You are expected to get more done. As you’ve mentioned, you’ve voluntarily accepted 15 different student. That means that you are responsible for finding bandwidth to give adequate support for your own projects and for all of those 15 projects. If you’re finding it difficult to balance everything then that’s not fair to yourself or your collaborators. You don’t want to be that supervisor that can’t reasonably supervise because you took on too much.

No. :)

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzj1vgr

fzj563q

The minute I made the decision to not work weekends during my PhD Edit: I do occasionally read and plan during weekends

Basically was the same for me: when I realized that I valued my outside life and having good balance with work. The exact moment was when I was talking with a huge star in my field and they were describing a more junior person who is already a star at a young age. They were saying how the junior person is always working, and gave the example that even when they are in the car with their partner on the way to a date that they would be reviewing papers or writing grants or whatever. And I just knew that was not for me because I get motion sickness reading in a moving vehicle. But more realistically, I would never want to give up having a non-work life.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjitwu

fzjrk9x

When I took a permanent contract at a mid level university, looked at my objectives and the promotion criteria and realised I could have a decent albeit unremarkable career and a life outside work. I do good work, stars in my field have said nice things about my papers but I write three of those a year, they write 9. But then I realised that the answer to 'when do they sleep' is they dont.

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjrk9x

fzjaacx

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

When I realized I wanted to have a life outside of work. I busted my whole ass, worked multiple jobs, and raised a kid alone during my Ph.D. By the time I finally graduated, I didn't have the energy or drive to go on the TT market. I want to work to live, not live to work. Also, the fact that I hate publishing helped with that decision. I prefer to teach and focus on working with students instead of cranking out research no one will ever read.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjrk9x

fzjlgia

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

But what does academic stardom even mean? Some people might think of it as being highly cited, but more and more we've realized that citations tend to be more a popularity game rather than a metric of success. Maybe it's having a ton of patents? Then again, patenting something can be very basic, and tons of people in industry have patents without being academics. Is it maybe coming up with a novel or breakthrough idea or method? I'd say plenty of academics have done this, but it hasn't been the right time or place to successfully get their innovation recognized. Is it having your own research project? Getting a lot of grants, or really big money grants? More and more stardom just sounds like a game of networking and being in the right place at the right time. A lot of it is luck. I'd doubt Jonas Salk thought of himself as a star, and people were giving up their seats on the bus for him. I'm genuinely curious about all of this, because even while I've worked with a number of different fields, I wouldn't say I've met any stars.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjms10

fzjrk9x

I don't think being a star ever crossed my mind. It's pretty obvious that even if you are very smart and hard working, there's a lot of luck involved and the competition is fierce. I just wanted to do something meaningful with my life.

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjrk9x

fzjat1q

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

When I heard how he was thinking about a grant idea when his wife was going through labor of their first born Also when I realized I’m significantly younger than him but I have less curiosity and sense of wonderment

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjrk9x

fzjfxpg

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

When I realized I didn't talk over other people to try to sound important in graduate seminars. I digested information thoughtfully, and then I would respond. The people who were invested in by the faculty were the ones who seemed to shout the loudest parroting what they said. They're not superstars either, btw. But I realized I wasn't being "invested" in. Still beat them all to tenure for those who survived.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjouzh

fzjrk9x

Haven’t given up yet! (Jk—I never really believed I would be a “star”) I think it’s kind of funny/interesting how many comments and upvotes attribute not being a star to a choice—not a personal limitation, as if they COULD have been a star, but are average only because they made a choice to be average. Seems delusional. I accept my mediocrity!

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjrk9x

fzjlx1e

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

I question the premise of your question. No matter how high you rise, you will pretty much always find yourself in the company of peers. As a faculty member, I was more educated than most, more successful than most, paid better than most, and had more secure employment than most, and surrounded by others who were just like me. Was I a star? When I earned full professor and later got an endowed chair, I was still one of many. Was I a star then? As a Vice President, I find myself in exactly the same position. Am I a star now? I guess I think it’s all a matter of perspective, and at this point in my career I personally consider anyone who makes it through a PhD and goes on to an academic career to be a star. Few of us ever reach the height of glory that we perhaps imagined when we were younger, but that’s true of pretty much everyone everywhere and all of us have accomplished far more than most.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjrk9x

fzjly9h

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I honestly never thought I'd be one. My parents are PhDs that didn't get tenure, much less become stars. I'm just trying to hold on and find a career I enjoy (either within or outside academia).

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjhecw

fzjrk9x

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjq36t

fzjrk9x

I always find the "academic star" thing odd. Compare to "stars" in other areas - pop music, films - and they are usually fashionable but often critically panned. Those we see as "academic stars" are usually a combination of privilege, nepotism, marketing, work-life balance sacrifice, as well as research excellence.

When I worked with a real star. I saw what it really took. It wasn't putting in a lot of hours or being ruthless or looking out for oneself. It was a real core type of competency and mastery over the field that few have. He was my mentor during one of my postdocs and he was by far the most successful scientist I had ever worked with other than my extremely famous doctoral advisor (who, tellingly, openly admired this other guy - probably 30 years his junior). He didn't play games with his students, he knew how to be supportive and kind without doing their work for them, and he knew which students to carry for a bit and when. He was there at every coffee break in they just chatting with whomever, he always ate with us in the canteen and it never felt like "the boss" was there. He's everyone's favorite colleague because he is open, honest, insightful and can see the right thing to do very quickly. People line up to collaborate with him and he is on so many papers it's ridiculous. And he's just great to be around. He has a really dry wit but is not cynical. He has a lot of interests and knows a lot about art and literature, and many other topics. He neither only talks about work nor avoids the topic. He almost never works in the evenings or weekends, only a bit on Sunday nights, and never before the kids go to bed. He takes a month off every August, just to be with his family on some British Isle where he he doesn't have good cell phone service and doesn't bother to get internet access. He has a wonderful marriage, great kids, and seems to really like life, in a British sort of way - meaning, not exuberant, but you can tell. He keeps himself fresh and doesn't burn out. He works efficiently because he keeps work confined to one part of his life. This makes him happier and more productive. When I saw how effortless it was for him, and how people were throwing money and titles his way, I could see what it was to be a star. And it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjitwu

fzjaacx

When I took a permanent contract at a mid level university, looked at my objectives and the promotion criteria and realised I could have a decent albeit unremarkable career and a life outside work. I do good work, stars in my field have said nice things about my papers but I write three of those a year, they write 9. But then I realised that the answer to 'when do they sleep' is they dont.

When I realized I wanted to have a life outside of work. I busted my whole ass, worked multiple jobs, and raised a kid alone during my Ph.D. By the time I finally graduated, I didn't have the energy or drive to go on the TT market. I want to work to live, not live to work. Also, the fact that I hate publishing helped with that decision. I prefer to teach and focus on working with students instead of cranking out research no one will ever read.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjitwu

fzjat1q

When I took a permanent contract at a mid level university, looked at my objectives and the promotion criteria and realised I could have a decent albeit unremarkable career and a life outside work. I do good work, stars in my field have said nice things about my papers but I write three of those a year, they write 9. But then I realised that the answer to 'when do they sleep' is they dont.

When I heard how he was thinking about a grant idea when his wife was going through labor of their first born Also when I realized I’m significantly younger than him but I have less curiosity and sense of wonderment

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjitwu

fzjfxpg

When I took a permanent contract at a mid level university, looked at my objectives and the promotion criteria and realised I could have a decent albeit unremarkable career and a life outside work. I do good work, stars in my field have said nice things about my papers but I write three of those a year, they write 9. But then I realised that the answer to 'when do they sleep' is they dont.

When I realized I didn't talk over other people to try to sound important in graduate seminars. I digested information thoughtfully, and then I would respond. The people who were invested in by the faculty were the ones who seemed to shout the loudest parroting what they said. They're not superstars either, btw. But I realized I wasn't being "invested" in. Still beat them all to tenure for those who survived.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjhecw

fzjitwu

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

When I took a permanent contract at a mid level university, looked at my objectives and the promotion criteria and realised I could have a decent albeit unremarkable career and a life outside work. I do good work, stars in my field have said nice things about my papers but I write three of those a year, they write 9. But then I realised that the answer to 'when do they sleep' is they dont.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjlgia

fzjaacx

But what does academic stardom even mean? Some people might think of it as being highly cited, but more and more we've realized that citations tend to be more a popularity game rather than a metric of success. Maybe it's having a ton of patents? Then again, patenting something can be very basic, and tons of people in industry have patents without being academics. Is it maybe coming up with a novel or breakthrough idea or method? I'd say plenty of academics have done this, but it hasn't been the right time or place to successfully get their innovation recognized. Is it having your own research project? Getting a lot of grants, or really big money grants? More and more stardom just sounds like a game of networking and being in the right place at the right time. A lot of it is luck. I'd doubt Jonas Salk thought of himself as a star, and people were giving up their seats on the bus for him. I'm genuinely curious about all of this, because even while I've worked with a number of different fields, I wouldn't say I've met any stars.

When I realized I wanted to have a life outside of work. I busted my whole ass, worked multiple jobs, and raised a kid alone during my Ph.D. By the time I finally graduated, I didn't have the energy or drive to go on the TT market. I want to work to live, not live to work. Also, the fact that I hate publishing helped with that decision. I prefer to teach and focus on working with students instead of cranking out research no one will ever read.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjat1q

fzjlgia

When I heard how he was thinking about a grant idea when his wife was going through labor of their first born Also when I realized I’m significantly younger than him but I have less curiosity and sense of wonderment

But what does academic stardom even mean? Some people might think of it as being highly cited, but more and more we've realized that citations tend to be more a popularity game rather than a metric of success. Maybe it's having a ton of patents? Then again, patenting something can be very basic, and tons of people in industry have patents without being academics. Is it maybe coming up with a novel or breakthrough idea or method? I'd say plenty of academics have done this, but it hasn't been the right time or place to successfully get their innovation recognized. Is it having your own research project? Getting a lot of grants, or really big money grants? More and more stardom just sounds like a game of networking and being in the right place at the right time. A lot of it is luck. I'd doubt Jonas Salk thought of himself as a star, and people were giving up their seats on the bus for him. I'm genuinely curious about all of this, because even while I've worked with a number of different fields, I wouldn't say I've met any stars.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjfxpg

fzjlgia

When I realized I didn't talk over other people to try to sound important in graduate seminars. I digested information thoughtfully, and then I would respond. The people who were invested in by the faculty were the ones who seemed to shout the loudest parroting what they said. They're not superstars either, btw. But I realized I wasn't being "invested" in. Still beat them all to tenure for those who survived.

But what does academic stardom even mean? Some people might think of it as being highly cited, but more and more we've realized that citations tend to be more a popularity game rather than a metric of success. Maybe it's having a ton of patents? Then again, patenting something can be very basic, and tons of people in industry have patents without being academics. Is it maybe coming up with a novel or breakthrough idea or method? I'd say plenty of academics have done this, but it hasn't been the right time or place to successfully get their innovation recognized. Is it having your own research project? Getting a lot of grants, or really big money grants? More and more stardom just sounds like a game of networking and being in the right place at the right time. A lot of it is luck. I'd doubt Jonas Salk thought of himself as a star, and people were giving up their seats on the bus for him. I'm genuinely curious about all of this, because even while I've worked with a number of different fields, I wouldn't say I've met any stars.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjlgia

fzjhecw

But what does academic stardom even mean? Some people might think of it as being highly cited, but more and more we've realized that citations tend to be more a popularity game rather than a metric of success. Maybe it's having a ton of patents? Then again, patenting something can be very basic, and tons of people in industry have patents without being academics. Is it maybe coming up with a novel or breakthrough idea or method? I'd say plenty of academics have done this, but it hasn't been the right time or place to successfully get their innovation recognized. Is it having your own research project? Getting a lot of grants, or really big money grants? More and more stardom just sounds like a game of networking and being in the right place at the right time. A lot of it is luck. I'd doubt Jonas Salk thought of himself as a star, and people were giving up their seats on the bus for him. I'm genuinely curious about all of this, because even while I've worked with a number of different fields, I wouldn't say I've met any stars.

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjat1q

fzjms10

When I heard how he was thinking about a grant idea when his wife was going through labor of their first born Also when I realized I’m significantly younger than him but I have less curiosity and sense of wonderment

I don't think being a star ever crossed my mind. It's pretty obvious that even if you are very smart and hard working, there's a lot of luck involved and the competition is fierce. I just wanted to do something meaningful with my life.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjfxpg

fzjms10

When I realized I didn't talk over other people to try to sound important in graduate seminars. I digested information thoughtfully, and then I would respond. The people who were invested in by the faculty were the ones who seemed to shout the loudest parroting what they said. They're not superstars either, btw. But I realized I wasn't being "invested" in. Still beat them all to tenure for those who survived.

I don't think being a star ever crossed my mind. It's pretty obvious that even if you are very smart and hard working, there's a lot of luck involved and the competition is fierce. I just wanted to do something meaningful with my life.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjlx1e

fzjms10

I question the premise of your question. No matter how high you rise, you will pretty much always find yourself in the company of peers. As a faculty member, I was more educated than most, more successful than most, paid better than most, and had more secure employment than most, and surrounded by others who were just like me. Was I a star? When I earned full professor and later got an endowed chair, I was still one of many. Was I a star then? As a Vice President, I find myself in exactly the same position. Am I a star now? I guess I think it’s all a matter of perspective, and at this point in my career I personally consider anyone who makes it through a PhD and goes on to an academic career to be a star. Few of us ever reach the height of glory that we perhaps imagined when we were younger, but that’s true of pretty much everyone everywhere and all of us have accomplished far more than most.

I don't think being a star ever crossed my mind. It's pretty obvious that even if you are very smart and hard working, there's a lot of luck involved and the competition is fierce. I just wanted to do something meaningful with my life.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjms10

fzjly9h

I don't think being a star ever crossed my mind. It's pretty obvious that even if you are very smart and hard working, there's a lot of luck involved and the competition is fierce. I just wanted to do something meaningful with my life.

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I honestly never thought I'd be one. My parents are PhDs that didn't get tenure, much less become stars. I'm just trying to hold on and find a career I enjoy (either within or outside academia).

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjhecw

fzjms10

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

I don't think being a star ever crossed my mind. It's pretty obvious that even if you are very smart and hard working, there's a lot of luck involved and the competition is fierce. I just wanted to do something meaningful with my life.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjly9h

fzjouzh

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I honestly never thought I'd be one. My parents are PhDs that didn't get tenure, much less become stars. I'm just trying to hold on and find a career I enjoy (either within or outside academia).

Haven’t given up yet! (Jk—I never really believed I would be a “star”) I think it’s kind of funny/interesting how many comments and upvotes attribute not being a star to a choice—not a personal limitation, as if they COULD have been a star, but are average only because they made a choice to be average. Seems delusional. I accept my mediocrity!

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjouzh

fzjhecw

Haven’t given up yet! (Jk—I never really believed I would be a “star”) I think it’s kind of funny/interesting how many comments and upvotes attribute not being a star to a choice—not a personal limitation, as if they COULD have been a star, but are average only because they made a choice to be average. Seems delusional. I accept my mediocrity!

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjhecw

fzjlx1e

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

I question the premise of your question. No matter how high you rise, you will pretty much always find yourself in the company of peers. As a faculty member, I was more educated than most, more successful than most, paid better than most, and had more secure employment than most, and surrounded by others who were just like me. Was I a star? When I earned full professor and later got an endowed chair, I was still one of many. Was I a star then? As a Vice President, I find myself in exactly the same position. Am I a star now? I guess I think it’s all a matter of perspective, and at this point in my career I personally consider anyone who makes it through a PhD and goes on to an academic career to be a star. Few of us ever reach the height of glory that we perhaps imagined when we were younger, but that’s true of pretty much everyone everywhere and all of us have accomplished far more than most.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjly9h

fzjhecw

Maybe I'm just a pessimist, but I honestly never thought I'd be one. My parents are PhDs that didn't get tenure, much less become stars. I'm just trying to hold on and find a career I enjoy (either within or outside academia).

I never expected to be a star, but about halfway through my PhD program is when I realized that I was making myself sick with how stressed I was about everything and I decided to just chill out. Plus, my advisors did nothing but put obstacles in my way of doing the research I actually wanted and so... that sort of out a damper on my plans, too.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjq36t

fzk8d7y

I always find the "academic star" thing odd. Compare to "stars" in other areas - pop music, films - and they are usually fashionable but often critically panned. Those we see as "academic stars" are usually a combination of privilege, nepotism, marketing, work-life balance sacrifice, as well as research excellence.

I was a superstar in high school and I was pretty solid in undergrad. I was the guy people went to for help. I had a lot of false modesty but my identity was pretty tied up in being smart. When I started graduate school, I went to lab meeting and heard the advanced grad students discussing really complex topics. I didn’t understand, and they would propose insightful ideas and I’d have no idea what was going on. And I said to myself, “This is imposter syndrome. As you gain experience you’ll understand.” Weeks turned into months, and then years. I read a lot. I listened a lot. And when someone was talking at lab meeting, other students - including those who came along after me - would ask questions that would go over my head. Inside my mind there was just this profound silence. No ideas. No insights. At best, a rudimentary understanding of the topic; enough for me to parrot back if quizzed, but nothing original. No new perspective. And it just... never came. I had risen high enough that I was now the dumbest guy in the room. Didn’t have the horsepower to do the job. So I had to learn other ways to think about my worth. Probably the best thing that could have happened to me, in retrospect.

hzi3x1

askacademia_train

For us average people in academia: When in your academic career did you realize that you weren't going to be a star and what prompted it? Now, if you are a star in your field or are on track to be one, congratulations! But this question isn't for you. I've spent my entire academic career at "highly-ranked" R1s, which means that I'm around a lot of people from undergrad students through early professors who have the expectation that they're going to be the stars of their field, and the environment promotes that. This is especially true at the university where I am currently. Most people, even from big-name R1s, do not end up being stars in their field. That's not a bad thing at all and is not even necessarily their fault - it's largely the nature of how reputations in academia are developed. I've also noticed that some are able to adjust to that change in expectation of themselves very easily, while others have a really hard time letting that go. I'm just curious for all of us non-stars, when in your career did you start to recognize that you weren't going to be a star in your field? What prompted you to realize that and what did you do to adjust your frame of mind to be content with it? I'm just interested in what others' experiences are and am not looking for advice or anything - I'm well past the point of being okay with not being on a path to be a big name in my field and am content with where I am (as long as I don't run out of funding!).

fzjx7wx

fzk8d7y

My (at the time) wife and I were each getting double PhDs. She had extreme health issues that nearly killed her and that(plus other factors) took its toll on our relationship. I took care of her while working non-stop. I racked up 5-6 publications, 30+ awards, multiple grants, and realized I was terribly unhappy and no one - neither advisors, nor my family cared. My partner resented my successes. I’m first generation. While doing fieldwork in a major US city, I realized I cared about teaching more than publishing articles that virtually no one would read and would thus have no impact on daily life and culture. Teaching seemed more important. My now ex-wife loved and desired academic acclaim more than me (which is fine, just not what I wanted). After 7 years of wasted life and suicidal moments, I divorced her and dedicated myself to teaching, media content production, digital/creative pedagogy (particularly helpful in the middle of COVID), and just being a person. I’m much happier now. I’m a TT assistant professor, in a good relationship of which I’m proud, and I am steadily covering my body in tattoos.

I was a superstar in high school and I was pretty solid in undergrad. I was the guy people went to for help. I had a lot of false modesty but my identity was pretty tied up in being smart. When I started graduate school, I went to lab meeting and heard the advanced grad students discussing really complex topics. I didn’t understand, and they would propose insightful ideas and I’d have no idea what was going on. And I said to myself, “This is imposter syndrome. As you gain experience you’ll understand.” Weeks turned into months, and then years. I read a lot. I listened a lot. And when someone was talking at lab meeting, other students - including those who came along after me - would ask questions that would go over my head. Inside my mind there was just this profound silence. No ideas. No insights. At best, a rudimentary understanding of the topic; enough for me to parrot back if quizzed, but nothing original. No new perspective. And it just... never came. I had risen high enough that I was now the dumbest guy in the room. Didn’t have the horsepower to do the job. So I had to learn other ways to think about my worth. Probably the best thing that could have happened to me, in retrospect.

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih69eg3

ih693a7

If there was a chance you'd fail, your supervisor wouldn't allow you to defend

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih69eg3

ih698b0

If there was a chance you'd fail, your supervisor wouldn't allow you to defend

All the best

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6aae4

ih6aji3

i don't know if it helps, but we all felt that way before the defense: i knw i did, and it went great. Best of luck to you. edit: i don't know the american system very well, i'm french and teach in france, but there are no reason to fail you if your supervisor has allowed you to defend: this would be seen as a direct attack on them, and a default to the rules of collegiality. If they had confidence in you, confident enough they would their name on your work, it means your thesis is not the failure you think it is.

Please check back in this thread and tell us how it went. Good luck!

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6aji3

ih693a7

Please check back in this thread and tell us how it went. Good luck!

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih698b0

ih6aji3

All the best

Please check back in this thread and tell us how it went. Good luck!

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6aae4

ih693a7

i don't know if it helps, but we all felt that way before the defense: i knw i did, and it went great. Best of luck to you. edit: i don't know the american system very well, i'm french and teach in france, but there are no reason to fail you if your supervisor has allowed you to defend: this would be seen as a direct attack on them, and a default to the rules of collegiality. If they had confidence in you, confident enough they would their name on your work, it means your thesis is not the failure you think it is.

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6aae4

ih698b0

i don't know if it helps, but we all felt that way before the defense: i knw i did, and it went great. Best of luck to you. edit: i don't know the american system very well, i'm french and teach in france, but there are no reason to fail you if your supervisor has allowed you to defend: this would be seen as a direct attack on them, and a default to the rules of collegiality. If they had confidence in you, confident enough they would their name on your work, it means your thesis is not the failure you think it is.

All the best

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6enu8

ih693a7

Hey OP give us an update, are you not just of of these people who always think they will fail their exams and have a big impostor syndrom? In many countries and US as well I guess if the manuscript is accepted for the defense there is no way to fail. You basically have your PhD already, you just need to show that you know what i inside and why it's done this way. If you were not ready for that and the manuscript was not good enough it would not be accepted for defense.

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6enu8

ih698b0

Hey OP give us an update, are you not just of of these people who always think they will fail their exams and have a big impostor syndrom? In many countries and US as well I guess if the manuscript is accepted for the defense there is no way to fail. You basically have your PhD already, you just need to show that you know what i inside and why it's done this way. If you were not ready for that and the manuscript was not good enough it would not be accepted for defense.

All the best

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6blf1

ih6enu8

You'll be highly valued in many industries beyond your current subject. Good luck with the defense and I hope it's a relief to have it finished.

Hey OP give us an update, are you not just of of these people who always think they will fail their exams and have a big impostor syndrom? In many countries and US as well I guess if the manuscript is accepted for the defense there is no way to fail. You basically have your PhD already, you just need to show that you know what i inside and why it's done this way. If you were not ready for that and the manuscript was not good enough it would not be accepted for defense.

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6f2fr

ih693a7

OP: if what you’re saying about your work were true, they wouldn’t have allowed you to get to the defence stage. That’s what the whole process is there for.

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih698b0

ih6f2fr

All the best

OP: if what you’re saying about your work were true, they wouldn’t have allowed you to get to the defence stage. That’s what the whole process is there for.

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6blf1

ih6f2fr

You'll be highly valued in many industries beyond your current subject. Good luck with the defense and I hope it's a relief to have it finished.

OP: if what you’re saying about your work were true, they wouldn’t have allowed you to get to the defence stage. That’s what the whole process is there for.

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih693a7

ih6ghvx

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

i hated my data…. and all turned out okay. gosh…been there done that during my ABD time…. you are an expert of your data…. of what your have. don’t sell yourself short HOPE for a pass with revisions…. even if extensive…. you’d have passed…. yes good luck and if willing, update us!

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6ghvx

ih698b0

i hated my data…. and all turned out okay. gosh…been there done that during my ABD time…. you are an expert of your data…. of what your have. don’t sell yourself short HOPE for a pass with revisions…. even if extensive…. you’d have passed…. yes good luck and if willing, update us!

All the best

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6blf1

ih6ghvx

You'll be highly valued in many industries beyond your current subject. Good luck with the defense and I hope it's a relief to have it finished.

i hated my data…. and all turned out okay. gosh…been there done that during my ABD time…. you are an expert of your data…. of what your have. don’t sell yourself short HOPE for a pass with revisions…. even if extensive…. you’d have passed…. yes good luck and if willing, update us!

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih693a7

ih6jwjn

good luck!!!!! please have hope and remember that failing is part of our journey. do your best as there’s nothing else that could be done today. you never know how things might turn out as you’re just nervous..

That’s just the imposter syndrome talking. Make sure that you get a good night’s sleep before your defense. I like the idea that you are thinking that push comes to shove, you will go back to your country. That removes some of the nervousness. But I’m sure you will pass, if your guide has allowed you to defend. Good luck and see you on the other side!

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6jwjn

ih698b0

That’s just the imposter syndrome talking. Make sure that you get a good night’s sleep before your defense. I like the idea that you are thinking that push comes to shove, you will go back to your country. That removes some of the nervousness. But I’m sure you will pass, if your guide has allowed you to defend. Good luck and see you on the other side!

All the best

w57eop

askacademia_train

PhD defense in a few hours Just getting this off my chest. I'll defend in a few hours and genuinely think there is a big probability that I will fail. My thesis is an embarrassment to myself, my PI, and the field. Data is limited, analysis is very simple, conclusions are unclear. I could train a master student and the whole data collection could be completed in 2 months. The analysis approach is like the ones done in the 70s or 80s, product of a bygone era. I don't belong on the modern, cutting edge area of science. I have made peace (slightly) that it's ok if I fail. I will go back to my home country this weekend (will be expensive but I don't care anymore), leave science forever (imagine wanting to understand the brain lol, what a nerd), and start my life anew. I just don't want my family and closest friends see me differently if I fail.

ih6jwjn

ih6blf1

That’s just the imposter syndrome talking. Make sure that you get a good night’s sleep before your defense. I like the idea that you are thinking that push comes to shove, you will go back to your country. That removes some of the nervousness. But I’m sure you will pass, if your guide has allowed you to defend. Good luck and see you on the other side!

You'll be highly valued in many industries beyond your current subject. Good luck with the defense and I hope it's a relief to have it finished.