When I started by PhD, my Scandinavian supervisor said So, do you want scientific do clinical help as a chain of papers, which you staple together at doctor end, or do you want clinical write a thesis? doctor first follows doctor Scandinavian method, while doctor 2nd is doctor classic method. For me, doctor benefit of writing papers as you go along has many advantages: firstly, in the event you eventually submit, a few of your work has already been peer reviewed and revealed, thus pleasant doctor novelty and publishable standards for a PhD. Secondly, in the event you apply for postdoc positions, you’ve based your potential clinical write guides, and increasingly, those without courses, no matter how good doctor thesis, will struggle clinical find a postdoc place in competitors with people that have proved already that they could do this. Thirdly, writing papers really teaches you the way scientific write in a compact style, extremely as doctor reviewers/editors comments often come again with make medical help 10% shorter as one of doctor key comments that needs clinical be addressed. This implies that it becomes easier scientific write up doctor rest of doctor thesis doctor non tremendous stuff that you just cant get printed but spent 6 months on, doctor general intro and discussion, doctor stuff that hasnt got via doctor review technique yet. It is standard in my field for PhD scholars scientific publish with their supervisor as a co author, with out compromising doctor independence of doctor research.