I completed my MTech from NIT Trichy in 2022 and have been working in industry since then. I now want to apply for PhD programs, both in India (IISc, IITs) and abroad (ETH, CMU, UW).
Does a two-year industry gap hurt PhD applications significantly? I have:
Would love to hear from people who have successfully navigated this situation.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Respectfully, I think this framing misses the systemic dimension. Individual researchers cannot solve a collective action problem. If you submit to open-access journals and your colleague submits to Nature, your colleague gets the promotion. Until evaluation criteria change at the institutional level.which requires policy intervention.individual choices have minimal impact.
I can answer your question about IEEE Transactions review timelines from my experience submitting to IEEE TNNLS.
For Q1 IEEE journals, expect:
As for code and data, most IEEE journals now request code upon acceptance, not submission. Regarding your 2.3% improvement.that is borderline. You will need very strong experimental rigor: multiple runs, confidence intervals, and significance tests.
For longitudinal data with missing values, mixed-effects models handle this more gracefully than imputation in most cases.
I have a slightly different take from my experience in industry research. The reproducibility crisis is real but unevenly distributed. Fields with strong engineering culture (computational biology, ML with benchmarks) have actually improved significantly in the last 5 years. The bigger problem is in fields where data sharing is structurally difficult.clinical medicine, behavioral economics.
The ML community's move toward open code and reproducibility checklists has been genuinely effective.
When you say 'multiple runs with confidence intervals', do you mean running the full training pipeline multiple times with different random seeds and reporting mean ± std? Or something more statistically rigorous?
I think you are conflating two separate problems here. The publish-or-perish culture creates pressure, yes.but the solution is not to criticize researchers who are navigating an unfair system. The real problem is with evaluation committees who treat publication count as a proxy for research quality. Fix the evaluation, and the incentives change.
Also worth noting: open review has been implemented in some fields and has its own problems. It can disadvantage early-career researchers who fear retaliation from senior colleagues they have reviewed critically.
Thank you for the honest take. This is the kind of answer I was looking for.not the sanitized version.
This question comes up a lot. The answer really depends on your specific field and what your committee values.
I found that writing a paper abstract first (before the paper) and then reverse-engineering the paper from the abstract helped with clarity enormously.
This is really helpful context. One more question: for the ethics committee approval, does the institution where the data is collected or the institution where the analysis is performed need to be the primary ethics approver?
This question comes up a lot. The answer really depends on your specific field and what your committee values.
This is exactly what I needed. Thank you so much.I have been going back and forth on this for weeks and this clears it up completely.
Highly recommend checking out the PMRF portal for the actual numbers.they update the stipend structure annually.
I am in a very similar situation. Would you be willing to share the outline of your PMRF proposal? Not the content.just the section headings and approximate word allocation.