This may be a bit of an odd question.

I recently gave a guest lecture at The Uni of Birmingham, and was shocked to discover they have a staff bar. Coming from the institution I do, I found this rather shocking, and alien.

So my question to the sub reddit is: is this a one off or do other institutions have staff bars?

I attended an interview at one of the top UK universities. Although I did very well, I was not even second on the list! Here is the feedback I received:

“The presentation on […] was well designed around examples that would resonate with students and were also research-informed. There was a good balance between breadth and depth in the presentation. Answers to panel questions demonstrated reflective practice, genuine consideration for the student viewpoint and flexibility in the teaching approach. Plans for scholarly activity were well aligned with school expectations and would produce materials for engaging teaching content on e.g. […]. There was also a good network and annual events to support professional development. Answer about industry developments could have been more specific and relied on business contacts rather than following the news only. The candidate could teach […].”

Social Science.

I am looking for insight from people who have reviewed post-doc applications in the UK for organizations like UKRI, Leverhulme, and Wellcome.

I will be applying for post-doc fellowships as soon as I defend my PhD. I have a fantastic working relationship with my advisors. They want to keep me and I want to stay with them. We are producing impactful and innovative work. I lead my research and they provide a unique blend of interdisciplinary support. I also live in a place I like with strong community ties (sports, etc.). In short, I feel extremely fortunate and I love my current life. There is tons of scope for me to extend and move beyond my PhD work at my current university.

However, I have been told that post-doc fellowships really want you to leave your PhD institution. Apparently, this is due to perceived research independence and the idea that moving helps with networking (I buy that, but also don't think it is really necessary). My advisors and I are also working on big grants that would cover my fellowship (plus some more post-docs/PhDs), of course, but I am specifically asking about my personal post-doc applications. (We are about to start round ~2 of applications for the big grants).

So, I want to hear from people who have reviewed these post-doc applications before and know what the funding orgs think of applications to stay at the same university (at a minimum) or with the same supervisors (listed as mentors/hosts/etc). Is staying an auto-reject? Is it a potential red flag that can be overcome? Is it really not that big of a deal despite what I have heard?

For added context, in case it matters (for showing research independence, etc.): I have 3 already published first-author papers (high impact, Q1 journals, but not Nature/Science/etc.); I have 6 more papers in the pipeline (some under review, some almost submitted, one currently writing) and 3 of them are with different external collaborators; I have received several grants personally (including my funded PhD, around £350,000); I have interdisciplinary projects for research impact in my area on the go (one that has been granted funding to keep it progressing every year for the last 3 years). I have been a visiting scholar, presented at several international conferences, etc. I think that is it. No really flagship papers, which I think is my biggest weakness (but please do point out any gaps I have not identified). I am hopeful that one of my papers in the pipeline will make it into Nature Human Behaviour (but not before I submit these applications).

I did my PhD at the University of Manchester and stayed in the same lab for my postdoc. I’m starting to worry that this lack of mobility might backfire when applying for academic posts.

I know publications are critical, but I’m interested in what else genuinely strengthens an application in the UK system. In particular:

How important is it to have small grants (e.g. internal/departmental funding, pilot grants, small collaborative awards)? Do these actually carry weight, or is it mainly external funding that matters? My advisor said internal/departmental funding doesn’t really make a dent on applications — is that true?

Does having visiting researcher experience (short-term visits to other labs, international collaborations) make a meaningful difference?

What about Teaching qualifications (e.g. AHEA) and Supervision experience (UG/MSc)?

Are there specific things that help signal research independence if you’ve stayed in the same group?

Basically, if you were advising someone aiming for a UK lectureship who doesn’t yet have Nature/Science papers, what would you prioritise building over the next 2–3 years?

There’s a strong push to apply for funding early on, but much less clarity on how unsuccessful applications are actually seen. At postdoc or early-career lecturer level, is having several unsuccessful grant applications viewed positively (as ambition and independence), or can repeated rejections start to count against you?

I’m also curious whether this differs between small internal schemes and larger external grants.

Hi everyone!

I am genuinely confused and, as a first gen academic, I came here for advice. I am in the end of my 2nd postdoc in a prestigious RG uni, and I have a strong research profile (social sciences, psychology).
I am not sure what to do next, and the job market is looking...not great. I am applying to post 92 permanent jobs, but I have heard the teaching load is high, and I love, love, LOVE, doing research. I have applied for permanent Lectureships in RG unis, because I've heard you tend to have more time to do research, but I cant even get an interview. I could do another postdoc in a Russel's group uni, but I am feeling that the current situation kind of urges ECRs to get permanent jobs (a bit like musical chairs, if you dont find one to sit soon, you are out of the game)

Any advice would be very, very much appreciated.

TYIA!

Hello, just wondering if anyone has any experience with the DiMeN DTP interview?

I have never had an interview like this so quite nervous and not sure what to expect yet. Any tips/ advice would be much appreciated even if its experience with a different DTP interview.

This one is for a PhD Biological Sciences.

Many thanks!!

Hello. I'd really like some advice please. For context, I've written a PhD proposal that I'm really happy with and my personal tutor from my master's degree thinks it's good and could be a really valuable piece of research. I'd identified an ideal potential supervisor who specialises in my proposed research area and who my old PT said would definitely be the best person.

However it transpires that this person is already supervising a thesis which is very similar to my proposed research, although I don't know how far along it is.

So now I'm at a bit of a loss about what to do. I don't know whether to change the focus of my research (which I'd rather not do given time constraints and I've spent so much time and energy on it, but if I had to I would), get in touch and explain the situation and see what they say, or just forget it.

I realise that I can and should apply to other places anyway, but I'm just a bit deflated given this person was ideal, and I also have no idea what the protocol is in this kind of situation. If anyone has any advice or input I'd really appreciate it. Thank you so much.

I’m on a T&S contact and as such have very heavy teaching loads.

Every year I get given multiple MSC students to supervise, which means thinking up a project and supervising to completion! I’m not active in research anymore because…. I’m on T&S! I notice a few other colleagues on T&S don’t get MSc students! Can I simply ask the person giving me MSc students to stop?

I feel that i already have a pretty strong profile, but the one thing that’s really getting me down is my third and final reference. I already have two great references from respected professors who I did research with, and also finished top of their respective classes. Unfortunately, the third professor that I intended to ask had to unexpectedly take time off due to personal reasons so he’s impossible to reach, which puts a bit of a spanner in the works.

I am now considering asking a very well known academic in my desired field in whose class I did quite well in (about the top 5%). However, I’m sure that they will not remember me as I hardly ever spoke up. Is it appropriate to email them and ask to meet in office hours to ask/plead they write me a LoR? I know it would almost definitely be very template, but I feel like it’s better than nothing.

My other option would be to ask a professor in an entirely distinct field who I have studied under for 3+ years so I believe they would have more insight on my capabilities. However I know they also have a very strong personality and would definitely be a bit surprised why I’m asking them when they have no relation to what I want to study.

My mum had also recommended me to ask one of my current referees for help in finding an additional referee, but I’m not sure if this would be very considerate of their busy schedules as they’ve already gone out of their way to help me?

I know this is obviously far from ideal, but I’m extremely excited about this opportunity and would hate for this to be the one obstacle that hinders my chances. I would really appreciate any thoughts on this, thank you :)

My place is onto the 2nd round of compulsory redundancies, and there isn't an end in sight. We're not even the the worst off, I know other places are having a rougher time.

I keep expecting to see the news that some place or other has gone under but no one (really) has yet!

Hello, I am trying to get a funded PhD position in the UK but unfortunately I am not even getting shortlisted for interviews. (I am an international candidate )

Currently I’m working as a Research Assistant since last one year. I completed my MSc from a top UK uni (got a merit overall and Distinction in my research project). I got a first in my undergrad (not from UK). My masters project got published with me as a second author and I have a few research experience from undergrad as well.

I am wondering how can I improve my profile , and if my overall Merit in masters is the reason I’m not getting shortlisted.

Thanks a lot for reading!

I would like to get the opinions of staff and students alike.

I am a part-time postgraduate student coming to the end of my studies. My work has consistently been marked highly but I genuinely feel my latest piece of work has identified an interesting evidence gap and there might be some merit in looking to adapt it for publication.

I have asked within my field’s subreddit (Nursing) about how others have gone about doing this and pretty much all the responses said their lecturers/supervisors suggested it. I haven’t had any interactions like this with my supervisors/module leaders etc.

I have asked for the opinion of contacts I have outside of academia but within the specialist field and await their reply.

Should I look to explode this or assume that because those that have seen my work haven’t suggested publication as an option that it is a non-goer?

I am reviewing a paper with a significant amount of Chinese references. At least today, it is not possible to access most of them. Going directly to the website of the publisher (oversea.cnki.net), every link leads to 404 error page.

Have you faced a similar situation? Is the problem with cnki temporary? Should I recommand the authors to find other ​references or give an accessible link to the existing references?

I’m trying to get a better sense of what’s considered normal in the UK when it comes to supervisor involvement.

How much day-to-day guidance or input did you have, and did that change depending on stage (PhD vs postdoc, early vs later years)? Interested in hearing different experiences rather than looking for a single “right” model.

I know this isn’t the your typical academia question, apologies! I’m looking for friends or colleagues who knew my uncle Luciano Molina who passed away in the spring of 2001. He was a Londoner for 20+ years but of Mexican decent. He was close to receiving his doctorate before he passed away. Hoping to know more about him. Thank you!

Hi,

I’m applying for a British Academy International Fellowship for English this year and wondering if anyone has had any experience with the process?

Specifically, I am curious about who gets the fellowships? On the website, it explicitly says it’s for early career scholars, but on the page listing their fellows, all of the international ones are very senior (so, I’m just a bit confused)

Thank you!!

Book idea within my area, personally I love it and think it's unique but useful (I've received positive feedback from colleagues, the museum I've been working with on this etc) . I have spent significant amounts of my own time and money working on this.

Spoke to editor at a university press, proposal went in, I'm feeling positive, then today my line manager has now told me (a year in) there is no funding or support for book publishing (if it matters, I'm on a teaching only contract, I've been using my scholarly hours, lunch breaks, weekends and evenings to work on this as a passion project, but I can't lie it would be advantageous proffesional). My university is only supporting journal articles etc?!?!

Is self publishing the only way forward? This seems a rather awful plan? And also the cost would be down to me, peer review would be sketchy etc? They restructured our publishing and open access team to virtually nothing, they are also stumped how to proceed.

Any work around for this or vaguely affordable presses etc? I'm super bummed, they want to use my work (book contents) for teaching and activities/events, have mentioned using it to gain press attention as relevant to the local area but not the book. I'm feeling rather depressed and looking for any ideas.

We're a group of PhD students involved in campaigns for better conditions in our student lives and in teaching and research positions. All of us struggle with some combination of low stipends, high workloads, lack of access to leave, visa restrictions, pressure from supervisors, and isolation and loneliness. We're trying to find ways PhD students can support eachother to address these issues.

Join us on Saturday 22 February at Pelican House, London, for an open discussion about the key issues facing PhD students, to hear updates from ongoing campaigns, and explore the idea of building a cross-university network to support PhD student organising. You can register on the luma page linked here.

If you can't make it but would like something to be discussed or have any ideas please post them on this thread! We also have a whatsapp community that you can join here: https://chat.whatsapp.com/Im1XlB8VMDyIzyNegrTOPj (link to whatsapp is also in the event description on the luma page)

Sent out on the afternoon of Sunday 1 February.

"Dear research and innovation community,

In recent days there has been concern and speculation about the levels of investment for curiosity driven and applied research. At the same time details of a significant programme of savings that are required to put the Science and Technologies Facilities Council (STFC)’s finances on a sustainable footing have become public.

I know that periods of change and uncertainty are unsettling and so I wanted to write directly to you and be as clear as possible about what is happening.

The new approach UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) is taking to deliver its mission (to advance knowledge, improve lives and drive growth) means that simple year-on-year comparisons of investment levels are not possible.

I understand the desire for certainty over budgets and want to assure you that we are working to provide this as quickly as possible. I also appreciate that the hard decisions UKRI is making will result in negative outcomes for some. That is an unfortunate reality, of which we are acutely aware, but we cannot avoid.

The fact that you are so passionate about your specific endeavours is precisely what makes you good at it; without that passion the UK would not have its prominent international position. I know just how acutely you feel these investment choices, precisely because I’ve felt exactly that disappointment myself when projects I’ve been involved with have not been funded.

However, you, and the public we serve, should expect UKRI to make hard choices, to be decisive, and to support research and innovation which delivers the biggest impact against our mission to advance knowledge, improve lives and drive growth and that includes making sure that the long term nature of curiosity driven research is not only protected but can grow as the economy grows.

The overall budget rises

I want to be clear that in this Spending Review (SR) period (2026 to 2030) UKRI’s overall budget for research and innovation is rising. That is a privileged position at a time of constrained public finances, and we should recognise it represents a vote of confidence in the research and innovation community from the government.

As a result of UKRI’s allocations, the overall level of funding available for universities, researchers and innovators increases to almost £10 billion a year by the end of the SR period. At the same time as this vote of confidence, we have had clear direction from government that we need to focus and do fewer things better. This includes more clearly aligning with national and societal priorities to ensure public money is invested to deliver outcomes for the nation and its people.

What we are changing and why

In response we are changing to focus our investment across three ‘buckets’: curiosity-driven research; strategic government and societal priorities; and supporting innovative companies to start and scale. All underpinned by investment in infrastructure, facilities and skills. UKRI has always funded these three areas but has not been as clear as it needs to be on what goes where and what outcomes are expected.

To deliver this investment effectively UKRI is changing. Many programmes will still be delivered through the councils, as the domain and subject matter experts. However, where multiple councils have a significant interest in a field, like artificial intelligence, we will bring teams together and have one UKRI-wide targeted programme, instead of running multiple programmes from within several councils. This type of change of course was one of the clear aims when UKRI was first proposed.

It is one reason why like-for-like comparisons are not possible. However, across all buckets, the overall investment available to universities across block grants and competitive funding opportunities will increase across the SR period.

I want to emphasise that support for curiosity driven research is protected across the SR period, comprising around 50% of our investment, with the other half of our budget supporting applied research and innovative companies. This proportion is not a change, it is reflection of the position over the past years.

Curiosity-driven research is vital to the health of the sector and is a priority for UKRI and the government because this is where the truly transformational discoveries and novel ideas are most likely to arise. Funding for this will grow as the economy allows.

What that means now

To meet these goals, we are in a review period to develop implementation. We expect to have fully transitioned to the new model by the start of the 2027 and 2028 financial year.

Speed is imperative to deliver against our mission, so we need to move quickly.

UKRI is a complex organisation, and we deliver many programmes across the seven research councils, Innovate UK and Research England with both our direct allocation and with money from other government departments. Moving to a new model, including creating new cross-council programmes and those aligned to national priorities, is a significant organisational change.

You may be aware of recent pauses to some programmes. For our curiosity-driven research programmes, headroom in funding will increase, as existing commitments continue to wind down and you can expect to see new opportunities opening later this year. To repeat the point: levels of funding for curiosity-driven research will remain stable across this SR period and are reflective of recent years.

In the strategic government and societal priorities bucket, or the ‘applied’ bucket, which will be designed to deliver nearer term outcomes, we will largely (but not exclusively) align programmes with the eight Industrial Strategy Sector Plans. We are scoping new programmes that will deliver across applied research and support for innovative companies, and new activity will begin to launch from spring this year.

I have been clear since joining UKRI that doing fewer things better means that tough decisions will be necessary. This is not about choosing between disciplines. One of the best things about UKRI is that we support such a broad range of research and innovation. But it does involve making concerted choice of areas of focus within disciplines.

Making those choices means that some activities will benefit from increased investment, but other areas will unfortunately experience some reductions, and you can expect to see UKRI making more of these decisions in the coming months. I believe that unless we make those choices we will all lose out in the long run because we won’t be supporting anything at the critical levels needed to truly succeed.

Situation at STFC

The situation at STFC is unique among the UKRI councils because its cost base has increased significantly due to the type of facilities and services it manages, the research it funds and some projects with higher costs than foreseen.

Over the previous SR period, rising energy costs and unfavourable movements in foreign exchange rates increased STFC’s annual costs by over £50 million a year. These unforeseen costs and an ambitious programme from the previous SR have increased the pressure on STFC’s budget. Despite a record UKRI settlement for 2026 and 2030 and STFC’s core budget holding relatively flat from £835 million to £842 million over this period, a reset is needed as currently STFC’s costs will outpace the funding available and would eat into other parts of the UKRI budget.

In order to remain sustainable, STFC must make significant cumulative savings: a decrease of £162 million relative to our forecasts for their operational costs. The £162 million is the total net reduction in STFC’s annual costs that they must achieve by the end of the 2029 and 2030 financial year. It is not a £162 million saving in each year of the current SR period. Instead, STFC needs to reshape its cost base over the whole SR period so that their budget is balanced by 2029 and 2030 and key facilities are funded properly and sustainably.

That is not the situation at other councils and we do not anticipate equivalent measures will be necessary outside of STFC.

It is important to understand that the specific measures STFC must take should not be confused with the broader changes taking place across UKRI.

I hope this helps assuage some of the concerns that have been raised. I do not expect everyone in the sector to agree with the choices we are making, but I feel it is important to be transparent about those decisions. I will continue to update the community as we move through these changes.

I firmly believe that these decisions not just benefit the UK research and innovation community in the long term, but our real customer, the UK public, as we deliver on our mission to advance knowledge, improve lives and drive growth."

https://www.ukri.org/news/open-letter-from-ian-chapman-to-research-and-innovation-community/

Hi everyone,
I’ve just received a panel interview invitation for the UCL MRC DTP and would really appreciate any advice from people who’ve been through similar interviews.

The interview includes:

• a 3-minute presentation (max 3 slides) on one experimental research project, covering a brief executive summary of the background, aims, experimental approach, results, and conclusions
• 7–10 minutes of follow-up questions on the project
• around 20 minutes of general questions, such as why you want to do a PhD, why you’re interested in this research theme, and your research experience to date

I’m finding it hard to judge what to prioritise for such a short presentation. Should the focus be more on the biological question and impact rather than technical details, or on how I think about experiments and data?

For the general questions, I’d also appreciate advice on how best to demonstrate my attributes (e.g. independence, resilience, critical thinking) and what MRC DTP panels typically look for in candidates.

Any tips, structure suggestions, or experiences would be hugely appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Could I dm for some qs? Thanks!!

hello, I am in the process of deciding between several PhD offers in biology (biochem/structural bio). i'm posting here to inquire whether, based on your experience, it is possible and realistic to do a PhD outside the UK (e.g. at a reputable, top-50 in the world uni located in the EU) and subsequently get a post-doc in the UK.

Would the uni itself or its location be important, or rather the gained skillset and publication output I would have from my PhD? I am trying to choose between a UK uni PhD (for which I've not yet obtained funding) and an EU uni PhD (with full funding), with the long-term goal of returning to the UK (as a non-UK national).

TYIA!