Peers and Beers  - interdisciplinary PhD regulars' table

peersThe interfaculty PhD regulars' table is an open meeting (2 x per semester) for all PhDs and doctoral students from all institutes, research centres and groups involved in RSA EPoS Economics, Politics & Society. In a relaxed atmosphere, this meeting is intended to promote the exchange of ideas on the status of one's own PhD project as well as on the ups and downs of a researcher's life. Employees of the university as well as guest, all PhD's are welcome.
The basic idea is to use the synergy effects of the interfaculty orientation of the research area by exchanging ideas across disciplinary borders. By pointing out overlaps and connections, a broader basis for discussion is created.


Each event is structured as follows:

 The format is intended to facilitate an exchange about deadlines, funding and organizational beersstrategies in order to navigate the PhD life more easily. For this purpose, we would like to invite experts who will present and discussed different aspects of scientific research.     

For each meeting we would like to find guest and PhD's who have their own experience with the different topics and provide a better insight. In a small group, we want to discussed problems, clear up ambiguities and answer your questions. 


Discussions can be continued over a drink at a pub nearby :) 


A look back


PuB 19:  Revise and Resubmit - dealing with the review process –15 April 2021

Oana Albu
Associate Professor of Corporate Communication and PR, Department of Management, Society and Communication

Martin Senn Associate Professor of International Relations, Department of Political Science, University of Innsbruck

We had the pleasure welcoming Oana Albu from the CBS to describe her experience with the review process looking at the journey of one of her papers. She shared a 5-year process with us filled with difficulties, waiting times and intense revision work.
Her take away to pass on to our PhDs was

  • If you get a revise & resubmit it is already a successhp_pub19
  • Take the feedback serious but not personal
  • Aim at a good journal – the process is always a lot of work, so it should pay off
  • Find your niece and stick to it

 Martin Senn from the University of Innsbruck than added his take on the process first from the writers and then from the reviewers perspective. Both perspectives were highly appreciated by the attending PhDs.

 If you get a revise & resubmit

  • Wait a day before you get started
  • Look at the common ground in the reviews, as well as were they take a different approach
  • Organize all points in a list according to priorities
  • Answer and argue all points raised, either in the in the review or the reply letter
  • Make use of your supervisor and your peers
  • Do a journal analysis – make your contribution look like it belongs in this journal

 How to be a good reviewer

  • Don´t accept the job if you don´t have the expertise
  • Don’t accept the job if you don´t have the time
  • Don´t accept the job if you are biased (know one of the authors)
  • Never google a manuscript
  • Work in time (as fast as possible)
  • Be polite – frame you criticism the right way
  • Be structured and comprehensive
  • If you just have positive feedback, take your time to elaborate

This interdisciplinary PhD regulars' table was a good mix of a showcase and overall information. Afterwards, Oana and Martin took the time to answer questions. On behalf of the participants, we would like to thank our guests for the insight into their experiences and the helpful tips.



With the transition from Organizations & Society to EPoS, PuB post-reports
will be published in English only. To see the previous reports click here.


Nach oben scrollen