I work as a lab manager in a R1 smallish lab (3 grad students 1 post doc), and I feel like no matter what I do, I’m bound to mess up and get called out for it. My job is to handle animal husbandry (making sure separations and weaning happen on time), keep lab supplies stocked, and place orders. The only mistakes I’ve made are pretty small and usually comes down to preference ( example: cleaning up cage sep. In the afternoon vs morning), and even then, they’ve been rare. But it feels like every little thing I do wrong is blown out of proportion, while my coworkers can make mistakes (like taking the wrong animal or not properly washing glassware) and just move on because it’s their project.

The latest thing that happened. one researcher, Sarah, has animals that require a special chow when they get weaned. A while back, she told me we’d discuss it closer to when her animals needed it, but she never followed up. Since she never reminded me, I weaned them normally. Because typically, the grad students always tell me the week of if they need to be weaned differently. Now she and my boss are acting like I should have known even though Sarah literally said we’d talk about it later. How was I supposed to know if she never said anything?

This isn’t the first time I’ve felt unfairly blamed. My boss has always reassured me that I was doing great, but after one mistake today, she suddenly flipped and said we “need new systems to track what’s going wrong.” When I asked for examples of repeated mistakes, she could only name today’s issue and one other thing. But now, suddenly, it’s like I have a whole “pattern” of problems? Feels like she just changed her mind about me overnight.

She also expects me to “anticipate needs before they arise,” which I get is an important skill, but I feel like I’m never met halfway. I can’t read minds, and half the time, people don’t communicate what they need. And instead of just telling me directly when something’s wrong, my coworkers go straight to my boss, which makes me feel like they’re waiting for me to fail rather than actually working with me.

And everytime I've gone to her asking advice about communication issues I think is happening in the lab I've been told "you're doing a great job, don't take what they say personally" so it feels frustrating cause it feels like despite asking for advice and being open to feedback, she now deems me as being defensive.

Now my boss wants me to write down everything I think I did wrong each week, and she’s going to do the same, then we’ll compare notes on Fridays. At first, I was happy to do this cause it might help with communication and expectations, but she’s rarely in the lab, so how is she even going to know what went wrong? And if miscommunication is already an issue, how am I supposed to know what I “should have known”? Am I just supposed to guess?

I do have one coworker who agrees the situation is unfair, but I still feel like I’m on thin ice. My boss also said this might be a “mismatch,” but honestly, it’s not a mismatch with the lab—it’s a mismatch with one person (Sarah), who never follows up on things but somehow never gets blamed.

I was planning on staying here until I apply for grad school this fall, but I don’t know if it’s worth it anymore. Especially since I want to go into industry after grad school. I feel like I’m ruining my relationship with my PI, which could hurt my chances if I apply here. At the same time, I feel exhausted from constantly having to defend myself.

I don’t know what to do. Is there any advice that I can try implement to be a better lab manager? Should I try to stick it out and prove myself, or is this a sign that I should start looking for something else?

Hello all! I am a masters student and I am close to finishing and defending my thesis. To make a long story short, my advisor let me know that he would be taking first authorship of my paper in the publication process to “do me a favor” by handing the manuscript edits and reviews edits during publication. I really don’t feel okay with this as this entire paper was done by me, and his stance of being a “martyr” by taking on the publishing responsibilities and being first author is not sitting right. The project idea was mine, every sentance typed in the document is mine, all of the data collection and analysis was complexly 100% by me. While he did advise me along the way and help me shape the direction of the process, in terms of content he has marginally contributed any more than the rest of my committee members. All my my committee members provided editing suggestions after my proposal but I have done 100% of the contextual work. He is claiming that he has a right to be first author if he takes over in the publication process after I graduate, regardless of me doing the entirety of the project up to my defense. I am not able to see through the publication process as I graduate in April and will be starting work. I am happy to grant him second authorship by taking on that role in the process, however, he says that he is taking first author if he carries out the publishing duties. Am I being screwed over/played like an idiot? Any advice or insight is so greatly appreciated!! TIA

Not sure if this is the right sub but— do colleges ever hire adjunct/part-time professors who are not PhDs but have just lived interesting lives?

For example, someone who was an entrepreneur and built a huge company like Facebook. Or someone who did extensive medical humanitarian work around the world. Or a businessman who invented a new algorithm that revolutionized trading. Or even like an astronaut who went to space/the moon?

From a student perspective I think it would’ve been really cool to learn about some of these topics from someone who lived it first hand and could include their own personal anecdotes in lessons. And then from that teachers perspective I think it would be super cool to retire from your progression and have that option to go into academia and share your experiences with younger generations. Obviously not in a full-time roll or taking jobs from real professors but just teaching 1/2 elective or more discussion based classes a semester/year.

I’m just curious if this is something that exists and already happens regularly or if it would be something that is almost unheard of and would never fly with higher up administrators.

Hi all,

I'm a 2nd year postdoc in evolution from a small R1 university. This is my first year on the job market and I applied to about 30 jobs (all tenure track research positions) .. So far I've had 2 zoom interviews (both at R2 universities) and have 1 scheduled next week at a prestigious R1 university. From what I know they are interviewing 6 on zoom and plan to get 3 people for campus interview.

The first zoom interview I had felt like it was a disaster. I answered all the questions, but it felt very mechanical, and I felt that I was running out of breath during most of it. Also, I felt like the interview came off as reading of a script (I didn't have any notes, but it did sound like that since I had practised answers to a lot of the common questions beforehand).

For the second one, I did not prepare beyond researching the dept and the kind of research and facilities they have. The second interview went better than the first, although in the beginning, I felt like I rambled a bit, and but the interview felt like a conversation by the end of it.

The questions where I felt like I rambled were those that were centered around tell us about yourself or versions of that.

I didn't make it to the on-site campus interview for either of these jobs. I really want to give my best to the next one (since it is a dream job of mine).

What can I do to perform better? Also, for all questions related to why that particular place, my answer has been the facilities at the University, the access to field sites to conduct research and the potential to collaborate with other people in the dept (is there anything I need to think about or add to these questions).

Thanks a lot!

I'm a researcher coming out of my posdoc now, so I've had a few years of experience, and just 2 publications.

The first one was with coauthored by my advisor, although he just supervised it. After submission It was immediately passed to the reviewers , and eventually published.

The second one as well, but this time my advisor told me to go as a solo author. It is in all standards better than the first one yet it passed through 4 journals before being published. And these were 3 desk rejections, two of them saying that although the manuscript showed quality work, it wasn't on the scope, and one arguing it didn't show a meaningful contribution. The second reason seems more legit, but these are the results of an experimental setting.

After it was finally passed to revisions during the 4th try, it was published without major revisions.

But it let me wondering, why is it that them first review isn't anonymous as well. In the end the editors have biases as well, I would say even more than the invited reviewers. H index of some well know authors are incentives for journals to chose to publish papers with big names. Although I absolutely agree with the logic of having a first editor evaluate if they commit the resources and time of reviwers, I cannot seem to find a reason as to why this process shouldn't be anonymous as well.

I'm I missing something here?

Campus visits over- i was one of 3 for TT Asst prof search in jan. I know the latest i will hear back is NEVER. If im the top pick- when is the earliest that a well-run R1 humanities dept could send me an email? Theyve been very communicative and efficient so far and was told they would tell me “as soon as they can”. I ask not bc i think im hot shit but in order to make plans bc im ABD and trying to figure out if i need to be sprinting to finish in may/june or can get a phd with some modicum of sanity left by October deadline. My partner just had some emergency medical things happen and i want to be able to help take care of him and take some time off since im not teaching and ANY practical info about the early end of the time line would be helpful. Thank you.

Hi, I'm two rounds of revisions into a publication where I am first author and I have a dilemma that I would like some advice on.

My supervisor has been making changes to the paper without my knowledge in between submissions. After I sent my final draft of the manuscript, my supervisor made many changes that I was not aware of, before the initial submission. Similarly, after addressing the first round of reviewer comments, there were more changes that I also wasn't aware of, before the manuscript was sent back to the editor.

My problem isn't that they made the changes without my knowledge (although it does feel shady) but that the changes don't really follow from the results. I wouldn't say that the changes are fabricated, but more like unfounded claims that isn't substantiated by the data, or by preceding literature. I discovered the changes when I was dealing with the first round of reviewer comments and I corrected them, and acknowledged the corrections in my email to my supervisor.

For example, in one of these changes, a whole figure was explained away with a single sentence, which didn't follow from the data and also without citations. I corrected this chang, in line with literature precedent, and also added the proper citations. Afterwards, I mentioned this change and others in an email to my supervisor, however they didn't acknowledge my email and reverted my corrections and subsequently sent the manuscript to the editor without my knowledge.

Now, we're at the second round of revisions and I'm looking at the most recent version and found the corrections I made to have been reverted. I'm worried that if published, this would constitute academic misconduct and that as primary author, I would be held liable for it and it would affect my future career prospects. There is one other professor who is listed as an author, but I'm not sure if he knows about these unmentioned changes, or even if he would care.

I plan to write an email telling them that I know about the changes and to please let me know in the future about changes that they might make. But I also posted here because I wanted to know if there were any other avenues I could consider. I think it would be great if I had another publication to my name, but I also don't want to be held liable for academic misconduct.

What will it take to change the system that treats applicants like s&$t, I know this isn't just an academia issue, but since a lot of them are public, surely it should be different. Has anyone had experiences outside of the US where they update during the process rather than ghost you or send a message months later?

I’m looking for a job at a high volume academic center and the advice I got was “kiss the ring…”

How do I go about it? I haven’t even seen the ring, the less kissed it… how do I make them extend the arm at least? Many thanks!

Good afternoon to all, I work at an HBCU with a diverse international student population. I am looking for resources and examples of how other academic leaders are supporting students’ mental health, personal safety, etc. post-inauguration. We are considering hosting student forums, but we are also cautious about doing so, for a number of reasons. Your perspectives and guidance are appreciated.

I recently finished my first review of a scientific article. In a previous post I outlined the difficulties of the experience, not being an area of my complete expertise. However some feedback made me realise that I had the capacity to make a fair and competent assessment. Perhaps because it was my first time I even put more effort than other more experienced academics.

This post is about something different, It's about how incredibly ridiculous, unethical, and stupid the scientific publishing system is. Perhaps because Im new, it's a revelation to me that has translated into two questions; How did we get here? And can't we do better?

I mean, aren't we supposed to be in the field of knowledge development? How can the whole system be so ridiculously stupid. We do all the work, we pay thousands of dollars for someone to upload a PDF on a website, corrected, evaluated and analysed (I assume to a high standard) by some colleague, for free? I just can't understand it

Submitted on Jan 16 2025. Study section will be held in October 2025. The next submission date for the grant (NIGMS MIRA) is May 16 2025. In my conversation with the program officer before submission (before the freeze, of course), she thought I would have reviews back from my Jan submission in time to reapply at the May submission date. Obviously not gonna happen now.

Anyone else seeing something similar with their submissions?

This seems to be the practice in my University and to me it shameful and to the folks who worked hard to earn that title. To the whole field of Academia it seems to be a slap to it's face. Someone who has a Masters and just started a doctorate program shouldn't have the title of Doctor IMO. I'm in Canada on the east coast and i don't know if it's an are thing or if this is widespread. Is this normal? I wouldn't accept being called Doctor before I have earned the title myself nor do I feel it okay to give it to someone else who hasn't. Am I out of the times? Any Opinions or thoughts?

Given the executive orders, are we in danger of not being able to teach a class like say, Iranian Literature? I am at a private university but obviously the school accepts federal funds.

Looking at the New College in Florida under DeSantis and how that once radical, liberal institution has drastically changed its curriculum is chilling. Will Trump be able to affect the curriculum and course offerings of public and private universities?

EDITED TO ASK: and what can we do about this?

Hello good people, I'm about to publish my manuscript but I have a publisher who is quite adamant on wanting an iThenticate report. The iThenticate software is a plagiarism detection tool just like Turnitin.

Unfortunately, my institution only offers Turnitin and does not offer iThenticate. Some institutions do.

I'm thus appealing to any of you great people who wishes to assist by running my manuscript through iThenticate and generating the report which I can send to my publisher. I'm really in a fix and I don't mind returning the favor by offering a few bucks. You can message me or just comment here and I will message back. Thank you in advance.

The word “demon” is a word too cuddly to call our dean, whom I hate with a passion. Since her on-boarding a few years ago, she has turned our college into an incredibly toxic environment.

She, the highest paid person in the college, speaks loudly to her inferiors about expensive things in her personal life. Her new house, for example, and all the bells and whistles in it. Because, and I quote, “what’s another $15K anyway”. She especially loves saying such things to staff members who are even lower on the totem pole in both pay and respect.

She will set her sites on people she doesn’t like, for no particular stated reason, and will tell them they need to find a new job. She doesn’t write them up, as they’ve done nothing wrong. She just tells them to find a new job sooner than later. I work in an at-will employment state, but this still feels manipulative of her power, especially since she refuses to state reasons for distaste.

She is a liar, a gossip, and a backstabber. Again, especially to her staff. Even if she feigns support to staff about issues in private, she will blame such staff by name in large meetings. I have seen her yell at and insult others’ intelligence in large meetings.

I am fervently looking for a new job where I don’t feel like I am walking on the edge of a knife constantly. But so far, I haven’t found anything that matches the compensation I receive here. I predate the dean, so my compensation is not thanks to any charity or initiative of hers.

But maybe she will move on soon. How long does a dean generally last? And is anything I have said grounds for any report I could make to HR? Her departure tomorrow would be too overdue. I used to be proud to work in academia, but it has become a thorn in my side, and it is only getting worse. To survive in this environment, even folks who used to be kind and easy to work with are no longer trustworthy and are angry, bitter, and conniving.

I recently had a grant fell through because the key collaborator did not contribute as she promised she would. She would say things like I’m working on this and I will get it to you by Monday and then nothing…. She didn’t apologize and just say that I’m working on this, but… she promised to send me preliminary results in one week two months ago, and then nothing…. I kept my end of the bargain and she just didn’t… she doesn’t seem too guilty or apologetic. Then, comes the final deadline, and there is no material. She looks at me like I’m going to save her ass. I vouched for her to work on this collaboration with my collaborators, and she let me down. Doesn’t even seem too apologetic. Doesn’t even realize that we couldn’t send in the grant because she didn’t produce. I guess I didn’t explicitly point the finger at her; rather just said, well we need aim 3 and preliminary results, and we don’t have it. How could she not know it’s her fault and she has messed up in a major way?

She has an attractive research background. Seems like a really nice person. I really wanted things to work out. But she just couldn’t deliver.

I wonder if people had similar experiences. What is the biggest let down by collaborators?

I’m an NIMHD-funded scientist, approaching the end of year 2 for my first R01 as PI. The past week has been incredibly stressful, as I assume NIMHD is going to be defunded, forcing an abrupt end to this project (and loss of 50% of my salary between this and other NIMHD projects as co-I).

I just met with my grants manager - she ran the numbers and I have enough carry forward to keep my lab afloat for a year if we downshift to personnel only - no travel, no new data acquisitions. We are a dry lab, fortunately, so we can make do with what we have to some extent. I at least have time to find some philanthropic support so we can survive for a few years. I don’t have to layoff my project manager.

I've noticed that most academic positions in Thailand require proficiency in Thai. As a foreigner, I’m wondering if anyone has experience securing employment there without Thai language skills.

Hi all, I received my first PhD in Europe and my 2nd PhD (needed for my post) in SA from an institution different than my employer. My employer institution wants to celebrate this by paying for custom academic regalia (!) and I'm unsure how to proceed: Do I use both discipline's colors? Should I add chevrons instead of changing the hood and cap? Since I'm frequently a juror for US and European PhD candidates, I don't want to look like a clown!

If it helps, the disciplines are Theology (1st PhD) and Philosophy (2nd).

Edit: I could also go with institutional colors (which happens in some regions) from where I received the PhD's.

Thanks for any sartorial help!

I was invited to review a manuscript and noticed that the assigned academic editor affiliation is a Russian institution, but the manuscript authors are not and do not work in Russia.

Is it ok to accept this assignment or not?

Edit: the manuscript is completely unrelated to arms development and anything alike. Zero potential for any kind of practical military usage.

I am working for a PI who is nice in person, but his actions are the complete opposite. He has no regards for my time because he is late to every meeting by more than 10 min. I'm in undergrad so maybe it is normal? But then again, I'm second guessing myself.

I'm in creative writing and marking many assignments where it reeks of AI or "grammarly-corrected" work. Drives me nuts. Sometimes it's very obvious but I have to pretend they wrote it and give feedback on "their" writing. Prof doesn't want to go after them and truthfully there's too many to chase after. If this was English, maybe it'd be easier given the prevalence of fake citations. But we don't do citations in these assignments.

Everything just feels like a complete joke. Please tell me I'm not alone in this?

I'm surprised at the number of STEM journals in my discipline that has reference count limits (no more than 20-30 citations allowed) for regular articles.

I can understand this rationale back when most journals were in print, but space shouldn't be an issue anymore as more journals are moving digital only. Is the reason for this due to less work for the copy editor to edit unlimited references we cite?

In contrast, I've also had some pretty weird experiences with borderline predatory open access publishers who want me to include a lot more citations when I already have like 50. I think the HE told me it's to increase the visibility of my paper when it's released, which I think seems to have very minimal impact IMO.

How do folks feel about including union work on job documents: CVs, cover letters, etc.? I’m an assistant professor at a community college in New England and I’m applying for a couple university positions. I’m very actively involved in union activities on my campus with committee work and negotiating committees. I’m also the elected union rep for faculty on my campus. I don’t know… Seems like this line on my CV could be great to highlight, but I’m also a little wary since you never know who will be on hiring committees. What do you think?

I am deep into my second postdoc and want to apply for funding to be more independent in my research and I also feel getting grants is kind of needed to advance to an assistant professor position. The obvious answers to this question are VENI, Rubicon or Marie Curie grants. However, my first postdoc of 4 years was not in the Netherlands and now it has been to long after my PhD to apply. My personal situation doesn't allow me to apply for a grant that requires me to go to another country. NWO XS calls are closed. What other options are there? I work at the intersection of computer science and life sciences.

I am a lecturer and funded under a line for dual credit for a local ISD. That ISD is switching their partnership to another college. That means my line disappears. My chair requested that my position be moved to a regular full-time faculty position, which would be a *new* line of funding, rather than slipping into an established vacant position. I didn't have research in my contract, and likely wouldn't again. I am new to higher education. I'd appreciate any insights about how funding changes have impacted contacts in the past? Are there steps I should be taking to help get that "yes?" Thanks!

Hi, I’m sure many of us are in the same boat but since the fellowship amount for postdoctoral fellows has increased to the NIH level at my university taking into account the experience, I am no longer a cheap labor (said in these exact words). Earlier I was taunted as being the cheapest labor in the market. With the recent development across the US and NIH things have taken a sharper turn. I am being sent emails which aren’t factually correct and the message intends to show my lack of effort and progress. Something along the lines, “the work should’ve been completed days ago, and I know it’s still it finished.”
The boss changes the outline - instructs everyone on the work to strictly adhere to it, only to change it back to the first one months later saying no one cares to improve the work and they have to find solutions for everything. I don’t know what to do.

Super curious. There must be some Trump supporting academics out there. Hopefully someone is willing to share their thoughts.

does anyone know what the recent rescinding of the executive order on federal agency disbursement means?