I need a bit of help (thesis submitted, lack of publications)

[gonadas91]

Hi all,

I will try not to extend too much, but basically I have been in a horrible situation for the last months and I am starting to get a bit desperate/anxious. I submitted my PhD thesis on Theoretical Physics in December 2017, and since then, I have been unable to find a position anywhere. Thing is I have already written two paper drafts, which my supervisor has promised me to publish eventually, but one of them has been on his desk for more than a year now and my hopes to get it published are getting smaller with time. I am mostly looking for postdoc positions in my research area, but without publications, I am not even called for an interview, not even to say that I am suspicious if my supervisor and the rest of my academic references are really sending any recommendation letters. I know my supervisor has not been doing that for a couple of posts I applied to, but he has done it for others.

I am getting more and more desperate, since now I am about to defend my thesis soon with no published material, and I am not even being called for an interview in academic posts. I am also being rejected straight through for industry positions since I have no previous work experience... Can someone give me any tips about how to handle this situation? Any advises about what could be considered a good move in the right direction?

I have always felt very attracted by academia and research, but the quote "Publish or perish" is starting to make sense now. Have any of you been in a similar situation at some point?

Thank you very much

 

[Orodruin]

The sad truth is that there is an overproduction of PhDs relative to the number of postdocs available (and an overproduction of postdocs relative to the number of faculty jobs available). Because of this, a large number of PhD students will find themselves in your situation, where the prospects for getting a postdoc to continue an academic career are slim at best. I do not know about your particular field, since you do not mention what it is, but speaking from the "other side" in high-energy theory and phenomenology, it is very difficult to get seriously considered for a postdoc position if not at least one (preferably more) of the following criteria are met:

• You have at least 3 published papers in well-renowned journals (JHEP, PRD, EPJC, etc)
• You have a very good letter of recommendation from a well-known authority in your field.
• You have some contacts with the institutions offering the postdoc through previous collaborations and you made a good impression.

Without at least one of those being satisfied, the typical pool of applicants will likely be too large to even start considering your application - the last call at my institute attracted 450 applicants so you really need to stand out somehow or you will just be one in the crowd.

When it comes to industry, I believe institutes offering PhDs should pay more attention to marketable skills, but that is another question. Your options here will also depend on how you market yourself and to whom. Depending on your interests, there may or may not exist companies that value your PhD. If you find it hard finding a job in industry, you will likely have to start at a lower salary and experience level than that which those who started to work when you started your PhD have at the moment. That being said, there are will typically exist some companies that value your research training.

 

[Choppy]

Thing is I have already written two paper drafts, which my supervisor has promised me to publish eventually, but one of them has been on his desk for more than a year now and my hopes to get it published are getting smaller with time.

Something about the language here seems off. It's not your supervisor's job to publish your work. Your supervisor should provide feedback on work that you've done, and in most cases the supervisor contributes enough to be considered a collaborator, but it's not like you hand the paper to your supervisor and expect him or her to submit it to a journal. That's usually left up to the student.

If it seems like your supervisor is dragging his or her feet on giving you this feedback, then you should probably arrange a one-on-one meeting and have a detailed conversation about what the hold up is. There may be legitimate reasons. Sometimes it might be necessary to publish something else first, for example. Or it may be that your supervisor doesn't have confidence in your work. If that's the case, it's best to figure that out now, because then you can figure out how to fix it.

It would also be good to learn if there are any specific issues with respect to reference letters. If your supervisor won't write you a reference letter you should figure out why, and what if anything can be done to rectify the situation.

 

[gonadas91]

It's not your supervisor's job to publish your work. Your supervisor should provide feedback on work that you've done, and in most cases the supervisor contributes enough to be considered a collaborator, but it's not like you hand the paper to your supervisor and expect him or her to submit it to a journal

That is something I've been thinking about for a long time, but he always said he would like to make some corrections to it, I also even asked him if he really wants to publish it, just to be sure that he is confident about appearing there. What I don't really understand is why he would ask me then to write another paper draft to publish when we have been for more than a year with the previous one, and has not been submmited anywhere. He has always repeated consistently that he really wants to publish it (I start to doubt that is the case), then why not saying "no" directly?

Or it may be that your supervisor doesn't have confidence in your work. If that's the case, it's best to figure that out now, because then you can figure out how to fix it

Yes might be the case, then he is too polite to reply "no" when I ask him if he really wants to go ahead with the publication. If he really doesn't want to appear in the paper, then solution is easy for me, as I can just not include his name on it then, but those are things that to my understanding, need to be said in advance.

It is not your supervisor's job to publish your work. Your supervisor should provide feedback on work that you've done, and in most cases the supervisor contributes enough to be considered a collaborator

Part of a supervisor's work is, as the word clearly states, to supervise a project. This includes different aspects of it, an important one of them is to help your PhD student to get familiar with the publication process, how publications are done and sent to journals for approval etc etc... basically because as a PhD student you don't posses the knowledge to do so for the very first time, nor the authority maybe to be corresponding author in case you have to deal with the referees. From my point of view, this is an unfair behaviour towards someone that has done work and spent hours on something important for his/her future. If as a supervisor you think the work developed is not good enough to be published, then you should also take on some resposability on it as the research leader in the development of the project;I would say 95% of PhD students are executors that just follow supervisor's directions to advance in the project... If you don't want to put your reputation under critics for something you are not sure about, then you should at least be honest and say it, recognize that the work developed is not good enough for your and quit your name on it, and not waste people's time on endless promises.

 

[Dr Transport]

Getting into industry as a theoretician is problematic. For example, if your dissertation is in high energy physics, string theory etc... chances are your not getting an interview. Why, well, couple of things. Your a lot smarter than they are, so, that is strike one, no manager is going to hire a person who is more intelligent that they are. If you've worked in a more esoteric area and not something more applied, same thing, you have nothing to offer them. Saying you can program and write code might get you to talk to them, but chances are they are going to hire the kid with a BS and a whole lot of programing course and maybe an internship or two because they are really cheap relative to your salary level.

As said before, it it all in the marketing and real world skills you possess.

 

[EnigmaticField]

I have the similar experience of being prolongedly delayed in publication. Nevertheless, I encounter it as a master graduate preparing for applying for PhD programs, rather than a registered student.

After graduation, I keep having difficulty in getting a paid position as I got my MSc in pure theories of fundamental physics. When I had the chances of being invited for interview, the interviewers often asked me whether my master thesis had been published in some journals even they obviously didn't have rough ideas of what my thesis is concerned with—the fields of those jobs they offered are so far from what I did in my MSc that I don't think they have the prerequisite to understand my thesis. Therefore I think they just want to tell if my thesis is excellent by seeing if it is published, just like an outsider of physics who tells if a physics undergraduate student is excellent by seeing whether they get high grades in coursework. Thus I think publication is very important—even if it can't make one get a paid job in the fields of the publication, it may help them get a paid position. So I had often considered writing my thesis in terms of papers for publication. My master advisor afterwards also suggested me, without me proactively telling him this consideration, to write my thesis in terms of two papers before I actually set out to do that so that I determined to do that without doubt. I just kept not being able to make time to do that.

Eventually I managed to finish writing them among extremely crowded schedules wherein I was simultaneously dealing with multiple tasks. I sent them to my master advisor for him to review in preparation for publication, considering they would be submitted for publication soon. Little did I predict he delayed it persistently and has never finished it. I feel so upset that the time I originally manage to chase to finish writing the papers is all wasted by him and what is wasted by him even far exceeds what I chase. In the beginning he always said he desired very much to do the pleasant job of reviewing our papers for publication but was frustratedly occupied by many tedious obligations which he didn't definitely specify. Afterwards he gave me a ton of hindrances which prevented him from reviewing our papers recently and promised to do it on certain upcoming dates whenever I asked him about his progress. If he can really do it on his promised dates after few times of failing to do it, I would have no problem with it. However, he has never actually done it on his promised dates but just told me new hindrances from doing it when his promised dates arrived and promised new upcoming dates, again and again, for uncountable times. Due to his persistent delay, I composed various strategies for solving the problem, to prompt him, thereby I was constantly anxious and worried, which led me to fall into a quagmire wherein I couldn't sleep well most of days and was thus constantly left behind by time without a way to ameliorate the situation. During the process of prompting him, I constantly read related literature to revise my papers accordingly and sent the revised version to him. Meanwhile, I also searched for suitable research themes for PhD. However, I didn't know if I should apply for PhD without publications; I think I should apply at least after submitting my papers, but his persistent delay made me not know when I can apply. I was really in a loss. Finally I submitted my papers for publication with me as the solo author but have succeeded in only one paper up to now. I have never told my master advisor I have submitted and published my paper since he has never asked about it as long as I don't address the paper issue to prompt him.

I then deeply understand depending on others for a critical thing is very risky—most people wouldn't be adequately considerate to you. I hate to be a student of a principal investigator on whom I have to depend; I wish I am a principal investigator so that I can publish papers on my own. Due to much consumption of time derived from his delay, I often wonder why he couldn't initially just say he wouldn't have time reviewing my papers but, instead, always said he is very glad to and will do it and repetitively used upcoming promised dates to seduce me into believing he will actually do it finally.

 

[ZapperZ]

@gonadas91 : Have you asked your supervisor on the progress in reviewing your manuscript? You don't want to be a pest about it, but inquiring it periodically might remind him/her of it, especially if this is someone who is pre-occupied with other stuff. If he/she has any conscience or responsibility towards the well-being of his/her students, then he/she knows that having at least one or two publications to the student's name upon graduation is important for the student's career.

In fact, while it isn't universally required in thesis defense, I know of many thesis defense committees that informally want to see the work being published by the time it is defended. It tells them that, yes, the experts in such a field has deemed it new and important enough to be accepted and published in a respected journal. In a few universities, at least one publication based on the student's work is required. I'm surprised that your supervisor doesn't at least want to be able to have it at least submitted by the time you defend your thesis.

Unfortunately, as has been stated here by other members, a degree in theoretical physics rather limits your "employability", especially in the private sector. Employers want someone who has the skill and knowledge that are somewhat relevant to the industry that is hiring, and in STEM related industries, it is more often a physical knowledge and skill, rather than something theoretical. This is why all of my students are "forced" to learned various experimental techniques and skills, even if their area of study does not call for using those. Unfortunately, this point is of no comfort to you at the moment, but I'm hoping that any other budding "theoretical physics students" will at least take heed on such warning.

Zz.

 

[f95toli]

Something about the language here seems off. It's not your supervisor's job to publish your work. Your supervisor should provide feedback on work that you've done, and in most cases the supervisor contributes enough to be considered a collaborator, but it's not like you hand the paper to your supervisor and expect him or her to submit it to a journal. That's usually left up to the student.

I think this depends on where you are. Here in the UK it would be extremely rare for a student to submit a paper without prior approval of the supervisor and if it did happen it would suggest that something was very, very wrong (I believe the famous example is Josephson, but that was a long time ago).
In some places it would not even be allowed since there might be an internal review process that every submitted manuscript needs to go through before being submitted,. .

 

[Choppy]

I think this depends on where you are. Here in the UK it would be extremely rare for a student to submit a paper without prior approval of the supervisor and if it did happen it would suggest that something was very, very wrong (I believe the famous example is Josephson, but that was a long time ago).
In some places it would not even be allowed since there might be an internal review process that every submitted manuscript needs to go through before being submitted,. .

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I agree, in my experience as well it is very rare for a student to submit a paper without the supervisor's approval. Indeed that would not be a recommendable course of action.

My concern was that the language the OP used seemed to imply that it was the supervisor's role to actually submit the paper.

Normally there are several rounds of back and forth revisions before a manuscript is ready and when all authors are happy with the manuscript, then the student submits it. Sometimes the supervisor will do this and take on the role of corresponding author, but a student shouldn't assume this will be the case.

It sounds to me like what's happened is that the process has stalled somewhere and the OP needs to figure out why. If, for example, the supervisor requested specific corrections be made and they haven't been made yet, then of course he's not going to allow the process to move forward.

 

[gonadas91]

Thank you all for your replies guys. I am going to give a little update about my situation now: I have managed to write two manuscripts, one of them has already been written for almost two years now, with countless promises about being reviewed in the near future, but as soon as I have (successfully) graduated, me and my supervisor have cut on any communication. The relationship is just inexistent. I have made all corrections he suggested, even made extra work on the almost two year written paper, he having full access to this, and he has not bothered to give me any list of corrections or similars, I assume because he has not even taken the effort to go through it. If he was not taking the effort of doing so while I was there, why should he do it now that I am out of the University and I have completed my degree? My theory is that, from the beginning it has not been on his mind to publish this work, and whenever I have tried to ask him if he really wanted to publish it he has always responded with a “Yes”, “for sure”, “we will have it published soon, is just me that I have to go over it”. These things have never come into an end.

After this experience, and being tired of the hopeless waiting, I have (unsuccesfully) tried to get a job in industry in order to live and earn money, having to move back with my parents being 27 yo because I have no money to live on my own. That I have not managed to find a job till now I associate it to two main reasons: First, my lack of "real world" experience; a company is not going to invest money into you if they don't see any value you could possibly add to the company. I consider myself an intelligent person, at least intelligent enough to have successfully completed a PhD programm in Theoretical Physics, receiving very favourable feedback from my examiners after reading my thesis and from people around me. I have become so panaroid on this that started to suspect that everything was a lie, that my thesis was just not good at all, but that people around (including my supervisor) had to encourage me to finish it, and that in the end, the thesis was succesfully awarded the degree in order to make things easier for everyone (see, my head reaches even the stupidests theories due to my lack of confidence).

Secondly, and relating to my pogramming abilities; I have used some programming for my PhD and for fun for myself, always oriented towards the creation of codes that allow me to calculate X quantities in model Y. For academia, I think this is fine, and unless you are in Computer Science or similar areas, I would say for Theoretical Physics is enough to know how to code some console program that allows you to calculate what you want. The roles I have seen so far in companies, involving programming, are very different. When you put on your CV "Programming in Z language", they expect you to actually KNOW how to program for applications that can be useful to the company, and this way of programming might be very different to the one used in Mathematical modelling or similars. Sure, algorithms are the same, but what about a Software Development cycle? You know what you know, and reaching the basic level to compete for such positions with others would require you to spend at least another PhD time duration on it.

Third, my "I have a PhD status, so here I am". Sometimes its said that we science people tend to be a bit arrogant towards our knowledge and capacities, and I have noticed this in myself while applying to jobs. Thing is the world out there is very different and cruel as compared to academia, and you have to be made of some special material to swallow it. It is not till you leave and go out there for a real job that you start to see how hard the world is, and how hard is to find a job, no matter which background you come from. So you want a job, then what can you do that will make this company succeed? As a theoretical physicist, is hard to find an immediate answer to this. Certainly, if we are trained and given the time for it, we might even get better that the guy that entered in that position years ago, but for that something is needed from the company side: Patience. They have to be patient enough to see your potential in success, and let's be honest, that costs money to them, so they rather get someone fresh from BSc or MSc, to whom the amount of responsabilities given will be very few until they really learn how to get things done. So, if you have a PHD, you might even get banned from the application for being OVERQUALIFIED for some roles. On the other hand, the roles fixed to your age and seniority might in 90% of cases be given to those guys that started to work when you started your PhD. So very narrow spectrum indeed...

Finally, I want to say something. I always wanted to try to become an academic, and I still think I would be good enough at it, both because of my personality and because of my intellectual curiosity. But things after my PhD have changed due to the awful experience I have had in the publishing area; No publications, no calls for interviews. And that's it. The popular sentence “PUBLISH OR PERISH” has found its roots deepened in my case, and I will go a bit further and generalise to say that, unfortunately, the sentence is brutally true to everyone out there.

If you want a PostDoc, and more over nowadays, you need to publish your PhD work. And to add come complication, having a not so good relationship with your supervisor also gives you less chances to get a very good recommendation anywhere. So double complication: Publish, Have a good relation with your supervisor, or perish.

I have now found myself miserable and jobless since December, doing nothing but failing and failing at industry position interviews, only because I got discouraged about ever publishing my work, given that the facts reflect null interest from my supervisor's point of view. And what is even worse, I was stupid enough to believe him till the end that before I graduate, my work would be published. Eight months without a job, psychological downs and feeling I am a useless person, and this gets even worse with every new failed interview. I have decided to stop communication with my supervisor, due to the lack of progress in the publication of our work, and I have been without talking to him for the last 3 – 4 months, and I don't think we will contact again, because I am just tired of the situation, and I think I have just realized how things are.

I want to close with a message to all PhD supervisors out there: If you have a PhD student that you think is not good enough, has not good enough material to get published, or you think his thesis is just very boring to get something out of it, or simply you just don't like his/her face, please BE HONEST. Do not play with people's expectations, and from the first time when you are asked about completing a project, or having something done/published, IF you think you might never have the time to do it, or you are just not enough interested, then please let the student know. Be honest, just say the truth, and then no one's time is lost, and more over, you might help that person in order to take better career path decissions. After saying this, I just want to close saying that I know not all supervisors are the same, because there are really good ones out there, that really care about their student's prospects and future employability, and that really act as Supervisors. For those of you on this side, great work, and keep doing things this way, THIS is the way it should be. Just as a curious anecdote, my PhD thesis draft was not read by my supervisor, and no corrections were made to it before submission. Even though, and taking into account that English is not my mother tongue, I made it to pass the viva successfully. But this is a foot note for you in order to create and idea of the degree of compromise of this person towards my work.

 

[verty]

...
After this experience, and being tired of the hopeless waiting, I have (unsuccesfully) tried to get a job in industry in order to live and earn money, having to move back with my parents being 27 yo because I have no money to live on my own. That I have not managed to find a job till now I associate it to two main reasons: First, my lack of "real world" experience; a company is not going to invest money into you if they don't see any value you could possibly add to the company. I consider myself an intelligent person, at least intelligent enough to have successfully completed a PhD programm in Theoretical Physics, receiving very favourable feedback from my examiners after reading my thesis and from people around me. I have become so panaroid on this that started to suspect that everything was a lie, that my thesis was just not good at all, but that people around (including my supervisor) had to encourage me to finish it, and that in the end, the thesis was succesfully awarded the degree in order to make things easier for everyone (see, my head reaches even the stupidests theories due to my lack of confidence).

Is there a way to get real world experience? Also, you got your thesis awarded. That was probably always going to happen. So now it's time to more forward and forget about the worry about your supervisor. He supervised and then he stopped because it would be awarded, I suppose. Who knows?

Secondly, and relating to my pogramming abilities; I have used some programming for my PhD and for fun for myself, always oriented towards the creation of codes that allow me to calculate X quantities in model Y. For academia, I think this is fine, and unless you are in Computer Science or similar areas, I would say for Theoretical Physics is enough to know how to code some console program that allows you to calculate what you want. The roles I have seen so far in companies, involving programming, are very different. When you put on your CV "Programming in Z language", they expect you to actually KNOW how to program for applications that can be useful to the company, and this way of programming might be very different to the one used in Mathematical modelling or similars. Sure, algorithms are the same, but what about a Software Development cycle? You know what you know, and reaching the basic level to compete for such positions with others would require you to spend at least another PhD time duration on it.

I don't believe this. As a PhD, you have shown that you are above the usual graduate, be it in computer science or whatever. You can hack it, you just need the knowledge now. I think if you had said, "I know enough to get started, it won't be a problem," you would have a fair shot.

Third, my "I have a PhD status, so here I am".

That won't work, of course not.

...
So, if you have a PHD, you might even get banned from the application for being OVERQUALIFIED for some roles. On the other hand, the roles fixed to your age and seniority might in 90% of cases be given to those guys that started to work when you started your PhD. So very narrow spectrum indeed...

Managers don't know that much. They think a PhD will cost them more. If you pitch your salary at a competitive level for the role, it shouldn't be a problem, IMHO. For example, I am looking for a starting salary of xxxxx rising to yyyyy after 2 years. Give them a future expectation that does fall in line with what they are willing to spend.

...
I have now found myself miserable and jobless since December...

It's time to change that, my friend.

...

 

[Dishsoap]

What do you mean when you say you and your previous supervisor have cut off communication? You send emails and he does not respond? If you show up at his door, what does he do, leap out the window?

 

[ZapperZ]

Thank you all for your replies guys. I am going to give a little update about my situation now: I have managed to write two manuscripts, one of them has already been written for almost two years now, with countless promises about being reviewed in the near future, but as soon as I have (successfully) graduated, me and my supervisor have cut on any communication. The relationship is just inexistent. I have made all corrections he suggested, even made extra work on the almost two year written paper, he having full access to this, and he has not bothered to give me any list of corrections or similars, I assume because he has not even taken the effort to go through it. If he was not taking the effort of doing so while I was there, why should he do it now that I am out of the University and I have completed my degree? My theory is that, from the beginning it has not been on his mind to publish this work, and whenever I have tried to ask him if he really wanted to publish it he has always responded with a “Yes”, “for sure”, “we will have it published soon, is just me that I have to go over it”. These things have never come into an end.

I'm going to address just this part of your post.

1. I had published a paper two years after I left my postdoc institution, based on the work I did while I was a postdoc. There is no such issue of publishing your work even after you have left the place where that work was done.

2. There's nothing here that says that you cannot submit the manuscript yourself. Contact your former supervisor, and let him know that you have done all that he had asked you. Tell him that if you don't hear from him in 2 weeks, you will assume that he is OK with the manuscript, and that you will submit it. I'm assuming that you two are the only authors. If there are more than the two of you, you need to do this for all the authors.

Then, after 2 weeks, submit it, assuming that you know where to submit it to.

Zz.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

I think you may have misunderstood my point. I agree, in my experience as well it is very rare for a student to submit a paper without the supervisor's approval. Indeed that would not be a recommendable course of action.

I submitted 3 papers without my supervisor's approval. It was in my last few months after a number of collaborative efforts had already been accepted/published. My supervisor had not contributed enough to these papers for inclusion as a co-author, and in the rush of the last few months, I didn't want to slow the process with supervisory approval. When he learned of it, he was not mad at all, he just wanted to make sure I included the right grant numbers. Two of the papers were published, one was rejected by a top tier journal, and I never got around to fixing and resubmitting it to a lower tier journal.

My view of academic freedom is that students do not need approval from supervisors to submit papers any more than faculty need approval from their departments. We are all scientists at different stages of the process. Supervisor approval is strongly recommended on the first few papers. But the goal of training scientists is independence. Hopefully that independence is achieved by the time the PhD is completed. In many cases, it is sufficiently achieved earlier to warrant submission of papers without supervisory approval.

My view is also that supervisors owe it to their students to provide a timely review of papers and sound recommendations regarding whether and where to publish. Supervisors who fail to do this are derelict in their duties; thus, students (and former students) are behaving reasonably to submit their papers without approval. But it's a harder road. Hopefully, the peer reviewers provide the needed feedback. My experience is that feedback from peer reviewers tends to be less carefully considered, less well articulated, and more based in authority than in reason compared with feedback from supervisors, mentors, colleagues, and (knowledgeable) friends.

 

[Orodruin]

My supervisor had not contributed enough to these papers for inclusion as a co-author, and in the rush of the last few months, I didn't want to slow the process with supervisory approval. When he learned of it, he was not mad at all, he just wanted to make sure I included the right grant numbers. Two of the papers were published, one was rejected by a top tier journal, and I never got around to fixing and resubmitting it to a lower tier journal.

This is also my take on supervising students. If at all possible, I strongly encourage my students towards the end of their PhD to start seeking out other collaborators and publish without me. I see it as a step in the training to become an independent scientist.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Getting into industry as a theoretician is problematic. For example, if your dissertation is in high energy physics, string theory etc... chances are your not getting an interview. Why, well, couple of things. Your a lot smarter than they are, so, that is strike one, no manager is going to hire a person who is more intelligent that they are. If you've worked in a more esoteric area and not something more applied, same thing, you have nothing to offer them. Saying you can program and write code might get you to talk to them, but chances are they are going to hire the kid with a BS and a whole lot of programing course and maybe an internship or two because they are really cheap relative to your salary level.

As said before, it it all in the marketing and real world skills you possess.

@Dr Transport , are you suggesting that a theoretician is essentially screwed if he/she wants to get into industry (and thus a theory PhD is useless)?

What would you suggest the OP do to make himself/herself more marketable and thus more likely to get an industry job?

 

[Mark44]

Secondly, and relating to my pogramming abilities; I have used some programming for my PhD and for fun for myself, always oriented towards the creation of codes that allow me to calculate X quantities in model Y. For academia, I think this is fine, and unless you are in Computer Science or similar areas, I would say for Theoretical Physics is enough to know how to code some console program that allows you to calculate what you want. The roles I have seen so far in companies, involving programming, are very different. When you put on your CV "Programming in Z language", they expect you to actually KNOW how to program for applications that can be useful to the company, and this way of programming might be very different to the one used in Mathematical modelling or similars. Sure, algorithms are the same, but what about a Software Development cycle? You know what you know, and reaching the basic level to compete for such positions with others would require you to spend at least another PhD time duration on it.

No, it doesn't require "another PhD time duration." I have taught classes in C, C++, and other programming languages at the undergrad level for many years. The software development life cycle (SDLC) is something I present in every class. One of the aspects of the SDLC is maintenance, which is usually performed by someone other than the original writer of the code. Maintenance is much more difficult if the original developer writes incomprehensible code with few or no comments and meaningless variable names. Unfortunately, this is typical of people in physics or engineering with no real training in computer science, and who have cobbled together a program or two to do calculations for their theses.

It doesn't take another PhD worth of studies to write code that someone else can read and understand. One or two classes, or even self study would do the trick.

 

[Dr Transport]

@Dr Transport , are you suggesting that a theoretician is essentially screwed if he/she wants to get into industry (and thus a theory PhD is useless)?

What would you suggest the OP do to make himself/herself more marketable and thus more likely to get an industry job?

No, a PhD in theory isn't useless if it is in a more applied/practical subject. But, I have never had the opportunity to interview a person who had a PhD in say String Theory for any position I had open.

The OP needs to realize that they can have programming skills, but if they are not the type that are looked for with respect to the position they are applying to, they won't get far. My suggestion is to get a degree in semiconductors or optics, I can't say that I'd choose to interview anyone with other skills other than antenna design and analysis.