Rough thesis committee and defense date

[chuck84]

So I'm in my third year of my PhD which has been extremely productive and I have two good publication-quality bodies of work but my committee and co-mentors seem to be putting a higher standard on me (possibly because my PI's want to publish in very high impact journals).

For family reasons, getting a later start in my MD/PhD, and most importantly the fact that I feel I've earned the PhD, I want to defend this fall but my PI's are hesitant and "can't guarantee first authorship" for my two independent projects if I head back to med school, even if one is submitted before I go back (the other is pub quality but my PI wants to make it one monster paper). Think this is a scare tactic or has anyone had horror stories where this has turned out bad?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Fencer]

Talk to your MD/PhD program director. If the PD has any pull, the PD would be able to sit in your next PhD committee meeting and at the very least advocate for you. The PD can also talk to your PI advocating for you. If the PI realizes that future MD/PhD students coming into the PI might be jeopardized by how you get treated, perhaps, they would be reasonable with you. During MS3/MS4, you also could get to do a couple of blocks of research to finish up papers. Again, your story highlights the importance to the Role of the MD/PhD PDs when you are choosing among different program acceptances.

 

[URHere]

I agree with what Fencer has said - talking to your PD is always a good first step. He needs to know what is going on, and you need him to advocate for you.

It's also good to get a clear sense of what your committee members want you to accomplish before defending. From my 2nd PhD year onwards, my committee was very clear about wanting me to have at least 3 papers written before I would be allowed to defend. They didn't require that those papers be submitted, but they required them to be complete. I know that some other students in my department were required to have 3 papers submitted before they could move forward.

If your committee has been clear about having similar goals for you, that is far more reasonable than stringing you along with the hope of securing a Nature-level publication. In my opinion, that is the biggest reason to talk to your PD. At this stage of the game, it isn't fair for your PI to hold your data hostage in hopes of a high impact publication, especially if you may end up with middle authorship on a paper that may not even be submitted (let alone published) by the time you apply for residency.