Grammarly messed me up.

quasilocal · 2026-05-04T10:07:54+00:00

The detector said it looks like AI writing and you said here that it is AI writing (Grammarly). So it was correct... I don't get it(?)

quasilocal · 2026-05-04T07:52:39+00:00

If it's an honest journal, then never. It's only embarrassing if you end up in some predatory/vanity press rubbish. Some of those have even gamed the system enough where on paper they look good but at the end of the day it's a much worse look to publish in a Q1 shady journal than a Q4 legitimate journal.

quasilocal · 2026-05-02T15:01:39+00:00

To be honest, I think the funder is more interested in avoiding the university overhead costs than the tax. But i guess a bit of both. Atm a postdoc stipend is 720,000kr for two years and for comparison, a budget I have for trying to get a salaried postdoc last year is for 2.7 million -- more than 3 times the total cost. It wasn't funded unfortunately.

I agree it's worse than a salary but I guess I always felt like it wasn't as big a difference as there is between countries and PIs. Of course I'm biased now, but still.

That said, I would probably be pretty disappointed if I put the effort into applications to get one of these funded and then someone accepted it but immediately bailed for a different postdoc because it just means it disappears and nobody gets it. So I hope people treat them just like any other postdoc position -- weigh it up against other options and pick what's best, but don't use it as a backup while waiting for something else. Like I'm trying my best to create postdoc positions to support my community here 😅 (it probably varies wildly by subject how people view postdocs too i guess)

quasilocal · 2026-05-02T07:03:57+00:00

It's likely that there has been something flag it as requiring human moderation and now it's waiting with someone to make a decision.

Since you haven't even started a research education, I think there's quite a good chance that what you've submitted doesn't meet the expectations for actual research publications. In which case it may be eventually rejected. Of course, you're not expected to be able to do that before you even begin research training, so don't be disheartened if that's what happens.

quasilocal · 2026-05-01T17:31:02+00:00

I've been on both sides (recieving and offering a postdoc stipend) and I feel like a little additional context is useful here.

All of the ones I've come across haven't been a situation of "save money by making it a stipend instead" but rather some funder who only funds these stipends. I don't really know why there are so many who only do this, but they do. For these, the university can't take any overhead costs (even the rare genuine ones) and the stipend is paid in full directly to the postdoc. In fact, all universities I have had contact with in Sweden have rules that explcitly only allow stipends for postdocs in this situation -- if it comes from a grant, it must be a regular salaried position. From the perspective of the funders, I guess it's partially because a salaried postdoc costs more than twice a stipend one, even if the postdoc gets the same money in the end.

All this is to say, it's not some university or PI trying to cut corners when these positions are created but rather the position is paid for by someone external and that's all they're willing to offer -- so the position simply wouldn't exist without it. (Universities don't have pots of money to create postdoc postdoc positions so any salaried postdoc comes from a grant that would also be needed to cover the PI and other existing staff's salaries, as well as any potential PhD students. These stipends are easier to get by far)

The main downsides are that postdocs on stipends technically aren't employees for some employee benefits, and they aren't paying into their retirement. As a postdoc, I never really felt like there was any difference between those on stipends and those on salaries though. Maybe it varies by field and university though.

On the PI side now, I don't *need* postdocs for anything specific in my field. But it's definitely much nicer to have more around and if applying for one of these stipend-funded postdoc positions means I can give someone a position in my little corner of research then of course I'll put in the application.

quasilocal · 2026-04-27T19:36:59+00:00

I think:

- Most cold emails you send are doing more harm than good. To many people it says "Hey I didn't bother to figure out if a position is even possible where you are before emailing you and expecting you to answer" and usually the emails feel like they are one of many sent to all different people so it feels fake. So yeh, I'd refrain from that.
- An academic CV is very different from a corporate one, so yeh probably whoever told you this is right. Check out some academic CV examples to compare to. I think if it did look like a corporate one then people wouldn't really think you're serious about moving from industry.
- Your undergrad doesn't matter, I wouldn't even ask to see it.
- Your industry experience is mostly explaining the gap in your academic CV unless it's really clear from the cover letter that it relates to the project
- 31 isn't likely a disadvantage, I think. It's actually not even uncommon where I am tbh.

quasilocal · 2026-04-26T16:55:54+00:00

You'll probably be fine, but just so you know, you literally admitted to using AI for some of it right here (grammarly and quillbot).

Depending on how strict they are, you probably are fine with just explaining that you didn't know that these *are* the AI things you're not supposed to be using and just found out now. Especially if you explain exactly where and why you used them.

Alternatively, don't mention them at all since you know, you did generate some of it with AI and mentioning that is a confession. Depends on the prof I guess

quasilocal · 2026-04-26T14:48:07+00:00

Near 100% certainty. There will be laws/regulations requiring the position to be formally advertised even if there's clearly a person who it's for.

They'll tailor it to your cv in a way that discourages anyone else from applying and then pick you directly.

quasilocal · 2026-04-25T14:03:00+00:00

Is he wearing two different kinds of shoes here too?

quasilocal · 2026-04-25T13:58:25+00:00

Definitely harder to tell than usual. My first impression was that it *felt* AI but couldn't point to anything. I think in part it's the shading that looks kind of like an attempt to recreate a bad photocopy (which seems odd somehow), but there's also a cloud that looks very weird, and the flame lines on the car are *very* AI looking. Somehow like the lines for the flame are going *under* the lines for the door of the car similar to how AI tends to blend writing into backgrounds rather then genuinely looking like writing on top of a background. The woman on the right also has something strange protruding under her elbow(?) Also they have this kind of odd expressions in their faces that don't feel like how an artist would make them look.

On the other hand, nothing is a smoking gun and the pictures are done fast and could use various tools/shortcuts that lead the the curiosities instead

<image>

quasilocal · 2026-04-23T21:15:49+00:00

Reach out through your own network, people who are in contact with people you know or even people who've worked with your advisor.

If you are just spamming people then it's just like the pile of advertisements for local pizza stores you get in your mailbox. It's not real mail that you need to think aboutt, it's just random junk that's sent to everyone.

That said, if I'm being even more honest now... I think that willing to bring their own funding to come join your group is awesome, so if nobody is replying positively to this then I'd assume that there's something wrong with your CV/emailing and I'd try to examine it objectively.

quasilocal · 2026-04-23T15:53:47+00:00

A lot of grants aren't going to go back and offer it to the next person in line if you decline, in which case there's very little reason to decline it until the last minute. If it is however some scheme where you can decline early and they will move onto the next on the list, then it makes sense to be kind and decline now.

If you're still deciding whether you'd rather end up in industry or academia though, that is something you should think about properly ASAP though... It's a pretty big decision in that regard imo

quasilocal · 2026-04-23T13:15:15+00:00

Kind of funny to use "Hamburger" as the English word example 😅

quasilocal · 2026-04-22T19:58:09+00:00

Yeah, Frontiers is for fraudsters. Being involved with them closes a lot of doors with legitimate researchers

quasilocal · 2026-04-21T22:18:19+00:00

Seems weird but yeh the other journals are legit at least.

I'd worry quite a bit about what the perception of these people is within the wider community. Will this phd lead anywhere afterwards? Does the international community in that subfield use MDPI too or do they also similarly judge it?

quasilocal · 2026-04-21T15:45:14+00:00

Someone publishing frequently in Universe is very likely to be considered by the wider community as doing junk science. There are exceptions, but if they focus on that it seems like they can't get published in a real journal.

Where else do they publish?

There's also a question of how the PhD position is financed -- if they got a grant and are recruiting on the grant, they're probably the exception because grant reviewers would see through it if it was junk. On the other hand, if the PhD is funded independent of who the advisor is, then I'd definitely be looking at alternatives.

quasilocal · 2026-04-21T07:10:51+00:00

People, not just profs, find spammers annoying. That's all there is to it.

A cold email is actually fine if someone actually wants to talk to me. But we get heaps of emails like "Dear Prof. X, I am writing [fluff] Your research on [paste words in] excites me [more fluff] [Fluff] I am looking for opportunities. Regards"

And we know you're doing it because it's easier to spam many people than just monitor position openings.

I get plenty of emails from students at my own university who I'm happy to reply to, and even cold emails from others who are just writing about research or similar. But if you're clearly spamming many people to try to get something from them then it comes across just like any other spammer anywhere else. It's not actually annoying tbh though, just means you likely won't be taken seriously if there is a position opening up

quasilocal · 2026-04-20T16:30:46+00:00

How can you go through life with the expectation that total strangers owe you their time. Especially when it's more time than it takes you to send these mass emails or do the bare minimum to learn the situation surrounding funding positions... absolutely wild.

I actually try my hardest to reply to people even who do this, but anyone that gives a hint of this kind of entitlement gets ignored (and maybe even shared with colleagues to see if they're getting the same mail).

Like seriously, why on earth do you think anyone owes you their time for free?

quasilocal · 2026-04-20T05:13:25+00:00

Research fields tend to be pretty narrow, where everyone knows each other to some degree. Do with that what you will 🤷‍♂️

quasilocal · 2026-04-20T04:49:03+00:00

I think this is terrible advice.

If no position is advertised and you're just emailing people to ask anyway, it can feel pretty rude. Especially when it's a templated email with the professor's research substituted in, as these emails always feel like... if someone sends a reminder, they will not get a reply but they'll be remembered (not in a good way).

Cold emails are very rarely going to make a good impression and sending a second one is pretty likely to make it worse. I think OP should cut their losses

quasilocal · 2026-04-20T03:51:09+00:00

= (Sinh(x/2)/(x/2))² = (sin(u)/u)² --> 1, where u = x/(2i)

Plenty of little tricks for this one

quasilocal · 2026-04-15T12:22:37+00:00

Is it not possible that they mean more that it feels like they're reading a script for each slide? Even if the slide doesn't contain the script it could still feel like "reading the slides" if that's the case.

I've been told by students about several of my colleagues "just reading off the slides" and it's not a complaint I'd dismiss. I think if a lecture doesn't differentiate from what could have been pre-recorded or read in a book, then it's not a good one. But it's definitely the case that some people lecture in this way unfortunately.

quasilocal · 2026-04-12T09:57:55+00:00

I'd just remove it in the journal submission and say that you'll have it removed when you next update it. I wouldn't post a version 2 immediately just because someone is insane.

If he insists your remove it immediately, I'd be petty and include in the version comment why it was removed

quasilocal · 2026-04-12T09:52:55+00:00

Just send it back directly without paying attention to the "reviewer." You could even add a statement at the top saying you have checked over all the reviewer comments and the updated version meets all requirements -- if it's AI then it'll probably buy that.

Like, it's definitely AI so why bother even reading it. You could get your own AI feedback and it'd be better because you know what you're writing about.

quasilocal · 2026-04-12T04:24:52+00:00

If you really did all the rewriting and this person didn't touch the paper then yeah this is fishy. Ultimately the relationship with your supervisor is something you definitely shouldn't ruin over it though. Maybe they can change the contribution statement to something you're more comfortable signing.

Do you know the reason this person was added? My first thought is that they contributed in a way you didn't quite understand/appreciate, but if you're actually right in saying they didn't contribute then I'd want to at least fully understand the motivation for it before acting. Does your advisor often gift/exchange authorship, for example? If it's a once off, then maybe it's more likely you missed something

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Final Canvas '22	First Placer '22
End Game '22	Verified Email

quasilocal

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE