I was working(in maths) for some months on a paper. After I got the results, I found out that some of those were already obtained in another paper that was not very related to my topic. In fact, in that paper, the result is stated as of ‘minor’ importance because the main purpose of the paper was quite different. It is the technique that he used to prove this, the one that I rediscovered and used in my paper to prove this result and others in the same domain. Due to this, I didn’t have a reason to search there in the first place. Although I have other results in my paper, this one was one of the main ones. Of course, I want to cite the old paper. Hence my questions:

  1. Is it worth publishing this with a proof?
  2. Assume now that I do publish it with proof. Is a phrase like: “Although we arrive at this result independently, it turns out that this was already obtained in [Ref]” acceptable in the paper?
  3. Is there a more correct way than the phrase above to cite the old paper?

I attended Capella University from 2009-2016. I earned a Master’s degree without any problems. I completed all of the coursework for the Ph.D. at the same university and spent two years in the dissertation program. Due to many hindrances by the university (Absenteeism of 4 dissertation chairs, Lack of guidance and direction/feedback and extremely slow response time- many weeks) I decided to withdraw from the university. My overall GPA for the doctoral program was a 3.8 and my total tuition was $185,000 for the two degrees. The university issued me a Ph.D. completion of coursework certificate. Can I use Ph.D. as an earned degree on my resume and other credential necessary situations?

How do you overcome advisers constantly moving the football / changing their minds?

I write papers after recommendations from my advisers and every time I end up redoing the entire analysis or asking an entirely different question. I feel like Charlie Brown and Lucy keeps moving the football. Here are three examples:

  1. I spent the entire third year of my PhD working on a paper with my committee chair using a specific type of model he specializes in to answer my research question. After completing the paper and submitting it to my department for review, my adviser comes back and says to scrap it. I pushed back a bit and asked what should be changed, but nothing could change his mind. He wanted a two-page outlining the new research question and modeling strategy. So I scrapped it and now the paper sits in a folder in my Dropbox.

  2. I spent my summer working on another paper with my committee chair as part of my dissertation. I finalize my results and draft a paper for my proposal defense. My committee approves my proposal, but in a meeting afterwards my chair suggests I redo the research question and thus incorporate a new modeling strategy. The paper has gone through several revisions, is complete, and ready to be sent out for peer review. However, here I am again reworking the analysis with a completely different modeling strategy and question.

  3. And finally, another paper I have been working on has had results for over a year, but is now undergoing a major revision to rework the modeling strategy, again. I am now on the 4th major revision of this paper having redone the entire analysis each time. I was literally writing up the results/discussion section of the paper when I received an email suggesting we rework the model.

On top of these three examples, I have two working papers that need minor revisions and are at a point where they could be sent out for peer review. I have published several papers as lead author and constantly review papers for other academic journals in my field, so while my experience is limited I know my research can be published.

I feel like my advisers keep moving the football and I can’t get my dissertation completed. I was on track to graduate in the spring, but none of the papers for my dissertation are complete and it appears I will need another year. But my experience thus far has lead me to believe Lucy will continue to move the football, so I’m considering dropping out and finishing ABD.

How can I deal with this constant momentum shift of my papers with advisers?

How do you overcome advisers constantly moving the football / changing their minds?

I write papers after recommendations from my advisers and every time I end up redoing the entire analysis or asking an entirely different question. I feel like Charlie Brown and Lucy keeps moving the football. Here are three examples:

(1) I spent the entire third year of my PhD working on a paper with my committee chair using a specific type of model he specializes in to answer my research question. After completing the paper and submitting it to my department for review, my adviser comes back and says to scarp it. I pushed back a bit and asked what should be changed, but nothing could change his mind. He wanted a two-page outlining the new research question and modeling strategy. So I scraped it and now the paper sits in a folder in my Dropbox.

(2) I spent my summer working on another paper with my committee chair as part of my dissertation. I finalize my results and draft a paper for my proposal defense. My committee approves of my proposal, but in a meeting afterwards my chair suggests I redo the research question and thus incorporate a new modeling strategy. The paper has gone through several revisions, is complete, and ready to be sent out for peer review. However, here I am again reworking the analysis with a completely different modeling strategy and question.

(3) And finally, another paper I have been working on has had results for over a year, but is now undergoing a major revision to rework the modeling strategy, again. I am now on the 4th major revision of this paper having redone the entire analysis each time. I was literally writing up the results/discussion section of the paper when I received an email suggesting we rework the model.

On top of these three examples, I have two working papers that need minor revisions and are at a point where they could be sent out for peer review. I have published several papers as lead author and constantly review papers for other academic journals in my field, so while my experience is limited I know my research can be published.

I feel like my advisers keep moving the football and I can’t get my dissertation completed. I was on track to graduate in the spring, but none of the papers for my dissertation are complete and it appears I will need another year. But my experience thus far has lead me to believe Lucy will continue to move the football, so I’m considering dropping out and finishing ABD.

How can I deal with this constant momentum shift of my papers with advisers?

How do you overcome advisers constantly moving the football?

I write papers after recommendations from my advisers and every time I end up redoing the entire analysis or asking an entirely different question. I feel like Charlie Brown and Lucy keeps moving the football. Here are three examples:

(1) I spent the entire third year of my PhD working on a paper with my committee chair using a specific type of model he specializes in to answer my research question. After completing the paper and submitting it to my department for review, my adviser comes back and says to scarp it. I pushed back a bit and asked what should be changed, but nothing could change his mind. He wanted a two-page outlining the new research question and modeling strategy. So I scraped it and now the paper sits in a folder in my Dropbox.

(2) I spent my summer working on another paper with my committee chair as part of my dissertation. I finalize my results and draft a paper for my proposal defense. My committee approves of my proposal, but in a meeting afterwards my chair suggests I redo the research question and thus incorporate a new modeling strategy. The paper has gone through several revisions, is complete, and ready to be sent out for peer review. However, here I am again reworking the analysis with a completely different modeling strategy and question.

(3) And finally, another paper I have been working on has had results for over a year, but is now undergoing a major revision to rework the modeling strategy, again. I am now on the 4th major revision of this paper having redone the entire analysis each time. I was literally writing up the results/discussion section of the paper when I received an email suggesting we rework the model.

On top of these three examples, I have two working papers that need minor revisions and are at a point where they could be sent out for peer review. I have published several papers as lead author and constantly review papers for other academic journals in my field, so while my experience is limited I know my research can be published.

I feel like my advisers keep moving the football and I can’t get my dissertation completed. I was on track to graduate in the spring, but none of the papers for my dissertation are complete and it appears I will need another year. But my experience thus far has lead me to believe Lucy will continue to move the football, so I’m considering dropping out and finishing ABD.

How can I deal with this constant momentum shift of my papers with advisers?

I am a midway PhD candidate, finished all the the coursework and the qualifying exam. This my fifth semester (i.e. I’m starting my 3rd year now). Actually I have started my research from the last semester (end of the 2nd year). Now I feel that, the topic I’ve selected to work on is not the right one for me. As both me and my adviser are a away from that area. I thought things will go fine gradually, but it looks no. So far I managed to write a manuscript for review paper (almost ready for submission) but I only got very simple preliminary results. I really not feeling comfortable to continue in this topic, because none is going to help me. I know, in PhD I have to do almost everything on my own; but definitely help is needed, otherwise, we wouldn’t have adviser(s) at all. I tried to contact someone in the field from another school, but my advisor is not helping me in that regard (somehow discouraging). I don’t know, how am I going to make a contribution, if I’m struggling to reproduce some results from the literature (that might look basic for the people in the field).
Last week I told my adviser I’m thinking of changing my topic;

he told me either I have to continue on the same (current) topic or I need to find a new adviser, he claim that, he might leave the school, and so don’t like to open new topic that may take time..

Changing my adviser at this stage, might look negative in the department, specially I struggled a lot to be allowed to work with my current adviser, I’m trying to avoid that option.

Now, is it okay continue working on some topic that I’m not comfortable with and my adviser may not help me on it, at all; or I’ve to change my adviser, regardless of the consequence.

Any suggestion how to convince my adviser to change my topic and work on something that is in our field both.

I am a midway PhD candidate, finished all the the coursework and the qualifying exam. This my fifth semester (i.e. I’m starting my 3rd year now). Actually I have started my research from the last semester (end of the 2nd year). Now I feel that, the topic I’ve selected to work on is not the right one for me. As both me and my adviser are a away from that area. I thought things will go fine gradually, but it looks no. So far I managed to write a manuscript for review paper (almost ready for submission) but I only got very simple preliminary results. I really not feeling comfortable to continue in this topic, because none is going to help me. I know, in PhD I have to do almost everything on my own; but definitely help is needed, otherwise, we wouldn’t have adviser(s) at all. I tried to contact someone in the field from another school, but my advisor is not helping me in that regard (somehow discouraging). I don’t know, how am I going to make a contribution, if I’m struggling to reproduce some results from the literature (that might look basic for the people in the field).
Last week I told my adviser I’m thinking of changing my topic;

he told me either I have to continue on the same (current) topic or I need to find a new adviser, he claim that, he might leave the school, and so don’t like to open new topic that may take time..

Changing my adviser at this stage, might look negative in the department, specially I struggled a lot to be allowed to work with my current adviser, I’m trying to avoid that option.

Now, is it okay continue working on some topic that I’m not comfortable with and my adviser may not help me on it, at all; or I’ve to change my adviser, regardless of the consequence.

Any suggestion how to convince my adviser to change my topic and work on something that is in our field both.

Browsing the Caltech online library is usually a good source of inspiration for me to improve my document quality and this made me wonder, do any supervisors have a gold standard thesis/dissertation you refer your new graduate students to, or students (like me) is there a thesis that made you thought ‘Wow, I want my document to be like that’?

I am in 3rd year of PhD and I was suppose to graduate after 1 year, but suddenly due to some unknown reason my adviser gave me 2 months to write my PhD dissertation. He said I have published 7 SCI journals (as a first author) and what I need to do is just compile all articles into single document.

I know it is common to publish article based on PhD dissertation. Is it also common to compile a PhD thesis based on published SCI journal Articles?
More tricky part is that out of 7 only 2 articles are written on same topic rest of work is totally different. But he insist I can create a link between all articles, which in my opinion doesn’t make any sense. It something like saying apple and orange are same fruit.
Let say I have no other option except compile my dissertation within 2 months. Is it possible that the PhD dissertation chapters may cover unrelated topics? Let say one part is related to Operating System and other part is related to Future Internet?

Barring any extremely unfortunate disaster, I am five weeks away from a final defense and a Ph.D.

At this point, we are in the re-write stage (“of my unforgivably horrible and weak thesis”) but it is expected to work and be ready for my final defense in a month.

Prior to the thesis, my advisor REALLY wants me to program the algorithm I give as part of my dissertation. Though I have the algorithm pseudocoded, I have no idea anymore about basic commands, data structures, counters, declaring local and global variables, and just general grammar and structure for what he REALLY wants me to program on (though I don’t HAVE to): Mathematica.

Worse, every time I try to get a dry, discrete checklist of what he wants for the program, it varies, often leading him to talk about ill about computer scientists and lament about how traditional languages just don’t do the job PASCAL used to do (dead serious). Hence, the last piece of progress required of me by his say so – a piece not really contributing to my original work and that could represent time better spent revising my writing and preparing for my final defense instead of learning how to print “LEOOH WHIORLD” on MATHEMATICA – is setting up, after two years of back-cracking dissertation work, to be what ultimately “does me in.”

When (or even if) I get standards for this program he wants to see, would it be unethical of me to hire a tutor to help me code the program, or even hire a programmer to help me write the program, even given that I pseudocode the program myself? Skipping the hours and hours of manual searching to learn how to read in files (and files with gigantic matrices at that) and how to look up code corresponding to pseudocode, keep up with counters etc. really seems like a good investment for me, but my moral bells are a ringing on this one, even if I pseudocode the project myself.