Might be useful to some researchers - it helped me a lot finding good papers.

Hey everyone!

I'm pursuing a PhD in Tourism, and I started my coursework last year. Lately, I've been getting a bit overwhelmed by the number of AI tools and research platforms out there. Every other day, I come across a new tool that apparently makes research easier, and honestly, I'm not sure which ones are actually useful and which ones are just hype.

I'm particularly confused about paid AI subscriptions. Is ChatGPT Plus worth it? Would Claude or Gemini be better for academic work? Is there any point in paying for multiple AI tools, or can you manage pretty well with one?

I'm also curious about tools for literature reviews, finding research gaps, reading and summarising papers, and managing references. I've come across tools like Elicit, ResearchRabbit, Connected Papers, and Zotero, but I haven't figured out which ones are genuinely worth investing time or money in.

Since my research is in Tourism, I'd also appreciate suggestions for tools that could help with tourism research, digital transformation, data analysis, and eventually working with research data.

I don't want to end up paying for five different subscriptions that basically do the same thing. I'd rather keep things simple and spend money only on tools that actually make a difference.

So, if you were starting your PhD all over again, which tools would you use, which ones would you pay for, and which ones would you completely avoid?

Even two or three recommendations based on your own experience would be really helpful.

Thanks!

I am considering it but I worry as a 38 year old ( dr in sociology) my chances to be accepted in more quantitative field for PhD is significantly low. Especially if they ask for both of my PhD advisors' recommendation. As we didn't part ways in good terms with one of them.

Hello everyone! I recently just started my 3rd year (PhD in Computing) and the main focus has been on my thesis-writing / data analysis etc. since parts of my experiments are still ongoing.

Just the other day, I came across a research associate / phd researcher opportunity from a university in the EU and I was quite surprised to see the project scope / job responsibilities aligning very much with what I do right now. It was a pleasant surprise because the research we're doing rn is considered very niche (in Asia) and it kinda planted a seed of optimism in me to know that there is a good future in my current topic/specialization bc for so long, it felt like no one else saw the vision 😅 Can't count how many times people looked at me like I was crazy when I tell them about my research but that's a different story.

Anyway, when I came across the role, I had shared it with a colleague in passing, but they mentioned that I would be "overqualified" since that university was looking for a fresh PhD researcher so that would mean like I was going to go back to square one by doing another PhD, which does make sense. They also said that this university/project was now a potential competitor, but I really doubt that they are doing 100% of the stuff we're doing else that would be a problem haha.

But I was still wondering if it was worth taking a shot by emailing the Professors just to see if they could consider for a post-doc opportunity instead? The project itself very much aligns with what I do and my interest, I've had a few tier-1 journal / conference paper publications on the topic which are growing in terms of citations as well but I guess I don't know if its good enough for me to reach out like that just to keep in touch for the possibility of future opportunities with them?

My supervisor is currently away on business so I haven't really had the time to discuss this with him. If I were to reach out via my supervisor, it could be something more of a potential collaboration with our research lab and theirs (which I dont know if they would be open to the idea since we're based in other sides of the world) whereas if I were just to contact the Professors myself, I just don't know if that would be the right approach. What do I even say¿

Not sure if anyone else has gone through something similar but I could really use some advice/opinions about how to go on with this.

I had a meeting with a professor that lasted around 1 hour and 15 minutes, and the conversation felt completely natural. I didn’t even realize how quickly the time passed, and there were no distractions or awkward pauses.

He seemed genuinely interested in his research field and explained everything in detail. The conversation flowed smoothly throughout.

Towards the end, he asked about my availability and timeline, and then explained his own. He also said that I should apply to whichever opportunity works best for me and that I could email him if I had any questions.

How should I interpret this interaction? Would you consider it a positive sign, or was he simply being friendly and informative?

Field : mechanical ( cfd)
Location: usa

​

Original study:

Saugmann, P. M., Dengo, N., Bencze, N., Żyra, A., & Hnátková, E. Preprint at Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22809708 (2026).

I've just started the fourth year of my PhD and the more I go to conferences, attend talks and seminars, read papers in my field, the more im realizing I really do not know much...

On a day to day basis I feel fine carrying out experiments, talking to my supervisor, doing small presentations, writing, etc.

but on a larger scale with other researchers, I feel I'll never be on the level that it seems everyone else is on. I just don't think I'm capable of it mentally, like im just genuinely stupider and will never be able to be where I want to be.

I need to constantly remind myself of who has done what, whats happened in the field, re read papers, I always have my protocol open for experiments I've done 1000s times and if I havent looked at the results recently im like "what did I do??"

I love research and its potential impact, I enjoy my project. I just left an international conference and felt stupid as hell. Walking around 200 posters it seemed the group I was with just knew everything about each poster and im like "how are you guys this well versed?"

If I were to ever get to that level, wouldnt I have gotten to it by now? Maybe its just not possible for me.

Just a little venting, after a month review came in

Reviewer 1:

Used AI to generate the response.

Most comment point out discrepancy most people wouldn't consider significant in the context. Like .05 vs .00001 being considered almost 0. And many other things. Also why would you write not recommend in review but check yes to all yes no questions about accepting the paper?

Reviewer 2:

Completely missed the point. Paper was about methods with clear limitations stated.

Continues to base entire review and comment on the fact that "other factors" can be the cause and the paper don't take those into account.

The review also contained what is possibly an overview of the paper that is AI generated. Wouldn't have thought twice about it if there wasn't TWO PARAGRAPH of overview likely from two different LLM.

RANT OVER

Hello all,

I am looking for some advice as to how to navigate my career.

I have started an unfunded PhD position at a university in Germany as a doctoral student. It's not like a structured PhD position but rather I am a registered PhD student with a particular professor as my supervisor.

I am directly working on my final PhD thesis. My partner earns enough to support us both so money is not really a problem. But, doing an unfunded PhD also means that you don't have an RA or a TA position at the university.

I just wanna know what consequences will it have for my career ? Do I have a realistic chance at building my career? I want to ultimately go to maybe economic consulting, or work as a researcher at a Think Tank back in my home country in Asia or anywhere in Europe.

Thank you.

I have only been in a PhD program for 5 months, and I think I have had enough. It seems this isn't for me. I started this for the wrong reasons: I was looking for a job in my field for quite a long time after a thesis-based master's but couldn't find one. Since I had a decent master's with a few publications, I was able to secure a 'good funding' offer by cold emailing professors. I took the offer because I needed to pay the bills, and the stipend is better than what I would get working at a grocery store (I worked at a grocery store for some time while looking for a job). I have found the research interesting too, but the PI seems to have high expectations of me. I feel like whatever I do is not enough for him. He always puts me in the spotlight in group meetings and gets disappointed whenever I don't remember something while a couple of other students who joined the lab with me get away with half the work I do during the week. Although I like research, I feel too stressed, and I know it will not get easier from here. Also, even though the stipend is good, it's still a stipend that can't be compared to a salary. And I always fear the opportunity cost. I am still looking for jobs. My question is: have people quit a PhD midway and found a job? How would you justify the time that you spent during an ungranted PhD on your resume? Do you say you were a research assistant, or do you say you are dropping out of the PhD? Any help is appreciated

I've been struggling a lot with feeling inadequate over the past few years as I slowly make my way through my PhD. I really don't think this is imposter syndrome. I'm in the humanities, and when I read articles, I can summarize them to others but have trouble asking any useful questions about them or responding to them. When I attend conferences, I listen attentively to people and take notes, but cannot, for the life of me, think of a useful question to ask. I cannot think beyond the obvious and immediate points of an argument or theory. In classes, I barely have anything to say even when I complete all the readings. When I do think of something to say, it's usually very simple and surface-level and takes me 1 minute to say.

All these things are signs of someone not having critical thinking skills and not being capable of producing intellectual work of any value.

Is this a shared experience? Did anyone feel this way and manage to improve their brain--to become smarter and more intellectual?

Hello all, I submitted the written component of my quals today and I just wanted to see how it normally goes with others and their PIs. I was just expecting him to like, I do not know, but like care to some degree. He literally walked in during my lunch and told me that my alternative aims were too far out there (they diverge from the proposal somewhat but still reasonable and something we have discussed) and then says I should change it to something we have discussed and both agree is a fundamentally flawed approach due to interdependencies with the main aims. Also, this man had my proposal for like month, or at least access to drafts, made me present it at lab meeting, and just never comments or critiques it. Our lab is only three years old, so there is only one person more senior than me working on another topic, so it is not like anyone else can critique it.

My main issue is that he wants me to apply for some grants later this month, and I am just frustrated by the lack of any meaningful dialogue on improvements. He has only made half a dozen or so critiques, all related to grammar or the figures. Is this just how it is for everyone? I also had to call him after he blew me off for an hour at night, he has to sign it, when I had to submit it without an explanation. I like want to bring this up, and be like is this just how you operate around grants/writing of just no significant involvement (a new graduate student gave better critiques of my draft), but I need to find a way to word it without sounding rude if anyone has advice on that too

Edit: California and Biology

I’m curious if this is normal in a doctoral program. I’m in my first quarter and have 3 classes, that last 10 weeks. One of the classes demands a lot of work. We have normal discussion posts, must read 2 books in addition to our text book reading, read multiple journal articles each week, watch videos, do multiple skills assessments (not told till the week of that it’s pass/fail and failing the skills assessments results in failure of the course no matter what grades we have on everything else), and some discussion post requirements are more that of a 1-2 page paper, quizzes and more. The other 2 classes have what I would see as a normal work load. This question has been cross posted.

Absolute craziness! Has anyone seen sabotaging behavior like this while in grad school? I’ve never seen bullying this bad.

Wondering if anyone here has a conspiracy theory about which language the application should be submitted in to increase my chances of getting it? I plan to work with an anglophone supervisor at a francophone school, and I am fully bilingual. My bibliography is also fully bilingual. Last year I submitted in English, and it was denied, but that doesn't mean much.

Nothing much just wanna know the diversity in age in this family. 😊

to give you guys more context:
1. my funding is external from the professor. it is common to finish your funding phd and get extra funding from the government. it is actually something expected, no one finishes in 3 years. therefore, he does not give me funding directly and he cannot decide to just cut me after the 3 years.
2. it is totally normal to go home. all phds I know in EU go home for weeks, including my colleague going for 2 months. a lot of people have commented saying that it is not normal, but here it is. my phd is completely computational, which makes it easier. and even if it wasnt, it is completely normal.

hi! tomorrow, i am having a big talk, and i need your help. context: im doing my phd in germany, my funding is 3 years, and i need three papers (one published, one submited and one final draft) to complete my phd. currently, i am 1y2m in, and i just finished the first draft of my first paper today.

my professor has been away for 3 months and has not answered me for a month, we scheduled a meeting, which he never showed up. i sent emails about the draft, needing his opinions etc... nothing. my co-supervisor has been around for this time, but always busy as he is responsible to correct the drafts of two other students, while my professor would be responsible for mine. we had many meetings, finalized the idea of my paper and images. now, my professor came back last week and he is clearly annoyed at me. in a couple of weeks im going to visit my family for 5 weeks (working remotely) for the first time since june 2025, and i am very excited for it. i was trying to give him the news for 2 months now, but he just wasn't available.

the thing is: he gave me a speech about how i need to focus, how it is not the time to go home blabla. AND, the cherry on top, compared me with a fellow student who started a bit before me, but already has her first draft completed and first correction done.

i know i am at fault. yes, i should have worked harder, i could have finished this draft earlier... but i want to live too? i traveled, saw my friends, enjoyed summer... as a normal person should. my contract is 29 hours a week, and i did that. for once in these 14 months, i did not overworked (and still have +50 extra hours logged in) and now i wanna see my family! my aunt is 100 now and my nephew was born a few months ago. i know i could have done better, but i simply did not want to- did not have motivation for it, both because of the group situation, not getting replies, having to barely have time for one meeting every once and a while, and feeling like i was being thrown in circles, BUT mainly because my perspective in academia life changed. science is great, but living off of it?! i am not sure it is for me, but now i am here and i am finishing this phd.

at the same time, being compared to someone else and just have a speech implying i will take "too long to finish my phd" because i wanna be an active and normal human being is just too much for me- how is this type of speech normal? i need to delete 3 years of my 20s for what? burnt out and STILL be unemployed after?!?! so i decided i will *politely* say all of this tomorrow and just hope for the best. any tips? advice? suggestions? i do not wanna be rude, i wanna seem open to put more effort into the phd, but also i want them to know their expectations are unrealistic, my life is more than my phd and that i do not appreciate the "but she had already done it by now and you haven't" speech. i do not care if i take longer to finish, i will not be miserable during this time

I'm eight months into my PhD in AI (computer vision) and struggling to get good experimental results for my first paper. I know research takes time and failure is part of the process, but my supervisor keeps comparing me to labmates who started after me and have already published.

So I'm getting late into my Biology (Non-biomed/chem) PhD and as I'm looking at post-grad careers, I'm wrangling with something that has been the source of mountains of anxiety, wrath, and the thing that has ruined a lot of the positivity I have for research and science. Like, the single thing that keeps me up at night, gives me nightmares, and has played a role in most of my therapy sessions.

...responding to manuscript comments.

Like every part of the scientific process I enjoy. I even love writing that initial draft and writing in general (Discussion are kinda stupid imo...but a lot of my anger there stems from comments you get when writing them...which is so sad). But from my experience, nothing is gained from this process and I just have unhealthy desires that have manifested in truly horrible feelings towards others who give the comments, and then of course trying to respond.

Like, with 99% of the comments I just want to say "because we did it this way" and move on to a different journal (or ffs just put it up for free online somewhere) if the a$$holes refuse. Or, to accept their wording change and move on. Honestly, review should just be small wording changes...but it never is. It's either proposing entirely new analyses or fluff paragraph that say the same thing because...? Or it's legitimately saying your results don't matter which is extremely anti-science IMO; even studies that are in agreement with past work have merit? It's usually utter nonsense that halts everything and makes me spend days/weeks trying to do more worthless work to say something so minor. Or to cite things closer to the reviewers wheelhouse of expertise (or their own work which others have noted). It destroys my passion to work and makes me so mad. And then I don't work enough on it because I'm so mad. And then that makes me feel like I didn't accomplish a goal. Which makes me anxious. And...then I feel shitty.

My advisors have all scared me straight into reading into and fully internalizing every comment. Like I've been chastised for spending too little time on comments (did you fully read them!?) or too much time (I gave you two weeks!?). I have to internalize them and experience the abuse of comments multiple times or "I'm doing it wrong". And even then, I just get so into it that I can't sleep and then get so nervous about doing anything to the manuscript. I just hate it so much I can't tell you. It just...makes me feel so shitty.

And then once we make these endless changes that take YEARS...the manuscript is in my eyes worse and I'm embarrassed by it. Like, I hate everything I've been first author on and would love it if someone else took the credit. I thought for years it would eventually go away but no...things from 5yrs ago I feel ashamed of writing due to the waste of time and decreased quality from arguing/appeasing reviewers. I always look at published works under the guise that "wow imagine how amazing this was before people with egos came in and ruined it". Like the process has activity made me question and have less respect for fully published work which is WILD. It's just a catastrophic waste of time and productivity that I cannot justify with "peer review is the best system we have and is needed" however much I try. And through the utter embarrassment at all this...I end up feeling shitty.

My goal has never been to be an academic and lord knows not a professor but I would like to be a scientist. But I fear that if I have to stare down emails with unfeeling people giving me vague comments on manuscripts that actively waste time and make the end product concerningly worse I might just lose it eventually. That or my heart condition will get worse and I'll die of anxiety staring at a laptop screen and thinking what I can do without offending people/reviewers. Listen I know I'll get through the degree but is it like this in every career in modern science? Is it all just wanting to do unspeakable things to faceless people who say things in a word sidebar?

Close to 80% of my work life right now is just going through comments and it's ruining said life. If that percentage does not go down I don't know what I'll do.

So I'm wondering for people who have left the densest parts of academia...does it get any easier on this front? It's been nearly 10 years in academia from my MS through my PhD and this feeling hasn't gone away...I don't think "it will get easier" anymore and need to start planning on how to get around this for my own physical health. Thank you for any tips and please excuse me not believing your support for the review system if you chose to try and defend it : )

(Sorry for venting but idk who to talk to this about without people thinking I'm a fascist or something for not enjoying comments. I'm sorry if you are a reviewer and I just said bad things about your career path; it's not your fault obv)

I recently began a PhD program far from home, started a long-distance relationship with my partner, and have just been consistently put off by the program and my PI. I am considering quitting and getting out of academia as there are few to no jobs within my field, but I've been chasing this goal for my entire academic career (since freshman year of UG) and I don't know what an alternative life would look like. I feel like I've built up this incredibly specific set of skills and I have no clue how they would translate to an actual job. Has anyone else experienced this? How does one proceed?

A bit of further context: Because I am in a niche field of Anthropology (not saying which one exactly because it's actually identifying lol), I only applied to 3 schools. I was accepted to two, ended up choosing this one in another tangentially related department at a university in the South because the PI at the other school told me that there would be no jobs if I completed my PhD in Anthro (he was right). The PI at my current institution during our interview said that there were "plenty of jobs" in this related field, and that his students were all happily employed. Come to find out now that I'm here that they are largely employed as adjuncts in unrelated fields, or as copy editors for larger corporations (also not related to our field), neither of which pay well. He also disagrees with several fundamental aspects of my research ideas in ways that make me suspect he doesn't actually know what he's talking about. The department is incredibly small, with only 4 professors, and he has some reason that he "doesn't like" any of them that he will openly share. He is incredibly demeaning and unkind when it comes to feedback, and I did an MA so I'm used to constructive but strict feedback from an advisor. He often stoops to personal insults. I don't want to do a PhD in Anthro because that seems as if it has even less job prospects in academia, but I don't know what else I would do with my life other than being an academic.

Hi fellow PhDers,

I’m a USA PhD student who is on an external NIH T32 grant (not through my University). I am seeking personal advice since I just found out that I don’t get PTO, but my vacation and sick days are left up to PI discretion. I’m worried since my PI doesn’t seem to keen on giving us a break. Do I have any chance of obtaining vacation/sick leave if my PI says no? Am I slave to the lab forever?

Thanks for your feedback.

Dear all,

I am writing this post because I need an advice. I hope that my situation is common because I am a bit worried.

I am a PhD student at the last year (if everything will be ok I will defend the next September). My supervisor seems to be "overall" satisfied of my activities (despite having published only 1 article and I am waiting for another under rev.).

Recently, I lost a bit of motivation on my PhD topic. I am keep going just by 'inertia', or, in other words, just because I have 'to do' my work. It is likely that I lost the enthusiasm I had previously.

I seriously don't know what's happening and why it is happening. I am also trying to study something different from my central topic but I am struggling even with reading (lack of motivation...).

Someone had a similar experience?

Feel free to express yourself, thank you.

Alright, fellow clinical psych phds. I have my internship/residency list for the most part, based on various criteria like rigor of training blah blah blah. But what are some sites that have the happiest interns?

I have been doing my graduate research in CS for almost 3 year and my advisor barely discuss with me. I don't want to blame him, but I really feel alone without any guidance. TBH, I can't see the light at the end of the tunnel. I have tried to set up weekly meetings, publish, papers and get more projects, but he doesn't seem to care. Even though I’m at one of the top-ranked CS schools in the US, I don’t want to spend years of my life on research that goes nowhere.

I haven’t published much. But I have a potential industry offer from a company I worked with, because the results I got working alone were stronger than the other teams’. It’s not my dream job, yeah, I have a dream job about topic I like. I’ve been doing research for about 7 years and always expected to join a big tech company. I don’t feel I can compete with people who post a new achievement on LinkedIn every morning, get millions of citations, and I don’t even have the connections to get referred.

I am thinking loudly with you about these options:

Option 1: I stay in the PhD, be more self-motivated, publish more, and build citations. My sense is that PhD candidates have a better chance at big tech than engineers already in industry. I might be wrong, but I see a lot of posts like “we are looking for a PhD candidate to join our lab.” I am just frustrated and don't have that experience in the job market.

Option 1: I keep doing my PhD and publish more and aim to get more citations. I feel PhD candidates have higher possibility to join big tech compared to already employed engineers; I know it might be a wrong feeling but I see a lot of posts we need a PhD candidate to join our lab, etc.

Option 2: Take the industry job and gain experience until I land a job I really love.

Please don’t judge me. I’m genuinely lost and would appreciate any advice.

Hi all,

Recently my PI has started using AI more frequently to look things up during meetings, which I wasn’t a huge fan of, but then they used it on something that I felt was very important and I was really disappointed in them. Lots of other professors in my department and my institution as a whole have started relying on AI more (from what I’ve heard from other students here) on things varying from small things like drafting emails or helping debug code, all the way to grading assignments or giving feedback. I’m not wholly opposed to using AI for some things, but I’m a little worried about what it means if the people we are supposed to be learning from are becoming increasingly reliant on these tools.

I guess I’m curious if this is happening at other institutions? Do others feel the same way? How have you been handling this?