next »

[hoptoad]

I have been reading the forums for years and gotten great information, now I’m posting for the first time to ask for help.  This is a long story, but I need to be detailed.

I joined a lab as a postdoc in the sciences immediately after graduating.  It was a large lab with at least 10 full-time employees (Bachelor’s and higher) and postdocs.  The lab director was nice, but lacked leadership skills, so a few loud PITAs ruled over everyone else despite their actual job position.  The grant that employed me was written chiefly by a PITA, but included the head of the lab as well scientists from other labs as Co-PIs.  The PITA was the least professional scientist I have ever worked with (I could write a book, but will stick to the facts relevant to this case), had a huge Napoleon complex (not my diagnosis, but I agree), and got away with everything because he was friends with the lab director (even though Napoleon would call the lab director stupid, undermine him, and walk out of meetings).  Napoleon felt that everything I did had to involve him and I tried to be diplomatic by including him. 

Within a couple months I perfected a new method for our research and wrote a methods paper for publication at Napoleon’s request (he had collected two-thirds of the data on techniques that didn’t work that we were going to contrast with the perfected technique).  The lab director agreed that the ms was publishable until Napoleon convinced him otherwise.  Napoleon nastily tore the project to shreds (there’s constructive criticism and then there’s just being a PITA, and this was the latter), questioned the methodology (ironically, of his own failed methods), and said we’d have to work on it.  The project and ms were shelved indefinitely and I didn’t fight for publication since it was a minor methods paper.

I finished a second project and wrote a ms about 10 months later to which Napoleon essentially did the same thing as the first one and even accused me of inventing data (which I took great satisfaction in disproving to him and the lab director).  This was a project worth fighting for, so I did and I agreed to add more experiments (even though they would be labor intensive and take another 6 months to complete).  I realized that I would never get anything published working with Napoleon, so I asked the lab director multiple times if Napoleon had to be on all my projects, and he said no.  I decided to do a project that I had asked Napoleon when I first started if he wanted to collaborate on and he said that it was uninteresting and had already been done (but it hadn’t).  So, I did the project in collaboration with a couple other labs and we got it done and published in a good journal.  Napoleon never knew about the project until publication or else he would have fought hard to be included as an author.

Eight months before the end of my contract and with no hope of renewal I received another, more secure, postdoc offer halfway across the country.  I asked my new boss if I could finish out the term of my current job and he said I either had to take the job immediately or it would go to someone else.  I took the job.  I knew leaving early (and the paper without Napoleon) would make him even harder to work with, and it has.  There are two projects from my first postdoc that need publication.  The first one I submitted to them (lab director and Napoleon) within a couple months after leaving.  It took them an even longer time to respond and the responses only came from Napoleon and of course they were negative.  This is a project which I designed, executed (with their approval), analyzed, and wrote-up.  I relented yet again to Napoleon’s demands and said they could do some additional replications (which I suspect will either never get done or is an attempt to steal my work/add new authors to my work/take away my first authorship).  The other project is the “second project” from my last paragraph in which I agreed to do more experiments.  I sent them the revised paper with the new experiments nearly three months ago.  The only response from Napoleon came immediately and he said it would have to go into the queue because they have other things on their agenda.  I directly asked the lab director a month ago if I could submit the paper if he didn’t have anything formative to say and he said to wait, that they would have corrections to me soon.

What can I do about this paper?  I suspect that Napoleon is calling all the shots and will never let this be published (I used to get feedback from them independently when in the lab, now I get nothing from the director).  I don’t really need the publications (I have about 20 first-authored pubs and quite a few are in better journals than where this work will be published).  However, these were my ideas, I don’t want them taken from me, and the data would be extremely useful and advance the established work in my field.  Can I send them an e-mail saying that I am going to submit the paper to a journal within three weeks unless they respond with corrections (would that meet a journal’s requirement that all authors approve of the submitted paper)?  If they persist in being difficult, should I contact their department chair?  Other suggestions?

[larryc]

Get you ex-advisor on the phone (not email!) and tell him what you told us. Tell him that you absolutely need to submit this paper, that he and you both know that Napoleon will never agree, and that you need the permission of the advisor to submit.

[geonerd]

I agree with Larry. Telephone your former adviser, and frame the discussion in terms of working out the timeline for receiving his input and submitting the manuscript. Has Napoleon contributed anything at all? Data? Ideas? If not, then no need to have him as a coauthor. "Dr. Advisor, I understand completely that Napoleon is swamped and has other priorities right now. I'm happy to submit a smaller, more focused manuscript, and I'll look forward to seeing Napoleon's Other Replications in print in the future."

[oldfullprof]

I was writing a paper right after my dissertation with a person who proved to be a psycho.  She wanted to become the first author (it was my research,) and started a fight with me to cause a crisis.  I fired her, copyrighted the first draft of the article (which I'd written,) and published the article by myself later.  I was careful not to use any of the minimal data she provided.

This doesn't fit your situation, but we're not as helpless as we might think sometimes.

[polly_mer]

Try what LarryC wrote first with Geonerd's suggestion of cutting out Napoleon as a co-author.  Even if Napoleon did contribute a bit of data or an idea, you can often satisfy ethical requirements with an acknowledgment of effort:

• Thanks to Dr. Napoleon for many discussions on this work and helpful suggestions.
• Big thanks to Dr. Napoleon for the data for run X and the initial discussion that gave me the idea to branch out into this work.
• The authors gratefully acknowledge contributions by Dr. Napoleon for providing a work environment where these ideas were initiated and for providing some analytical assistance with some data.

People mentioned in the acknowledgments do not have to approve of the paper in any way, but Napoleon will look very petty for raising a stink if he didn't contribute substantially to the paper enough to get a publishable paper in his own right based just on his data complementing yours.

[hoptoad]

Thanks for your suggestions.  I guess I'm wondering what recourse I have if the lab director won't publish without Napoleon's input or as co-author?  I know this is putting the cart before the horse: I will call the lab director and have a chat (even that has to be done carefully because Napoleon's office is next door), but the lab director rarely overrules Napoleon.  I have a strict policy on what it means to be an author, but that lab does not.  Napoleon thinks that if he has a conversation in passing about your work or gives you a paperclip, then he's an author.  He has bullied his way onto many papers and the lab director doesn't have the stones to stand up to him.  The lab director even suggested adding Napoleon to the one paper I published without him and the only way I fought that off was because it was collaborative with other labs (the lab director was an author because he funded me, not for any other contribution, so I had the backing of my other co-authors to not include anyone else from my lab).

And by the way, Napoleon didn't finish his PhD, but he will lead you to think he does, which is all part of his complex.

[polly_mer]

Well, Hoptoad, you appear to have to make a grown-up researcher decision: do you

a) publish good work with proper acknowledgments to cover your ethical bases?
or
b) let good work hide in the drawer because you are unwilling to burn bridges with people who probably have that as a daily occurrence?

I don't know of a single more-than-junior person who hasn't had a similar question arise.  If Napoleon is notorious for being this way and being on his bad list is fairly common for your field, then talk to the advisor and publish anyway.  The only question at this point is whether Napoleon and/or the lab director will be listed as authors (they must agree to this) or in the acknowledgments (no agreement is required, but some editing of the paper may be required).

[oldfullprof]

People who don't finish and hang around graduate schools are notorious dicks.  I've seen this a few times.

[larryc]

Discuss publication with ex-advisor but don't even mention the issue of Napoleon as an author.

[hoptoad]

I talked to the lab director on the phone yesterday.  He said Napoleon thought some of the data didn't match expectations and an experiment should be repeated.  See the familiar trend?  Anyway, I expressed my astonishment at this because Napoleon agreed that the data looked good while I was still working there.  I said as first author I should get to make the final call, not Napoleon, and that there had to be a major problem for me to hold off publishing.  I also mentioned that replicating the experiments would take nine months to complete (assuming they diligently worked on it starting now) and that delaying publication that long was unacceptable.  The lab director was very pleasant and agreed with everything I said, then again, he always does that and eventually caves to Napoleon.  The lab director said he'd send the edited ms to me.  I'll let you know what happens, but I'll continue pressuring the lab director to approve this ms.

Thanks again for all your comments.

[polly_mer]

The lab director said he'd send the edited ms to me.  I'll let you know what happens, but I'll continue pressuring the lab director to approve this ms.

Be sure to set some firm deadlines so that this doesn't drag out for 9 months anyway.

A month at this time of year for academic folks or those who are on the federal fiscal year is a reasonable amount of time to do some minor editing on a fully formed manuscript.  Don't let this drag on past then.

Good luck!

[geonerd]

The lab director said he'd send the edited ms to me.  I'll let you know what happens, but I'll continue pressuring the lab director to approve this ms.

Be sure to set some firm deadlines so that this doesn't drag out for 9 months anyway.

A month at this time of year for academic folks or those who are on the federal fiscal year is a reasonable amount of time to do some minor editing on a fully formed manuscript.  Don't let this drag on past then.

Good luck!

Absolutely chime to this.
Send a follow up email to say how nice it was to hear from Former Advisor and your look forward to receiving his input by due date. Personally, I would make it the end of August, before the semester starts.

Good luck!

[larryc]

I am not in the sciences, but do you absolutely need the director's approval?

[hoptoad]

Since he's an author on the paper, ethically I do need his approval to submit.  I searched the fora earlier to determine whether he had to be an author since he provided funding and no other input.  While merely providing funding doesn't meet the authorship guidelines of many scientific societies, it seems the majority on the fora think it does in an advisor-postdoc relationship and I don't want to be accused of being unethical.  Maybe if this was my last ms with him I'd take the chance of dropping him (and Napoleon), but I still have that other one at his mercy because I agreed to let Napoleon do more replications.

And I did send him an e-mail thanking him for the chat and setting deadlines.

[polly_mer]

I am not in the sciences, but do you absolutely need the director's approval?

All authors on a paper must approve of the paper as part of standard ethical guidelines.  One of the things signed during the publication process is a legal document stating that the corresponding author is submitting the work with the approval of all authors.  Submitting for publication over the objections of a co-author is a fast way to get blackballed by journals--even faster than plagiarism.

However, whether the director has contributed enough to the paper to have to be an author instead of being ok with just being in the acknowledgments is a separate question that only Hoptoad can answer.

Hoptoad, can you ask someone more senior than you in your field what the fallout from publishing without the director on your paper would be if push came to shove?  For example, in my sub-sub-subfield some directors are notorious for falling out with their postdocs and graduate students over such things.  No one in the field thinks badly of anyone who was in Big Name X's lab who now can't get a letter of recommendation from Big Name X since dozens of people are in that category.