next »

[hoptoad]

Here are the events since the last I time I posted.

1)   After calling the lab director and sending a follow-up e-mail I also sent Napoleon an e-mail about the ms and deadline and requested data for the ms for which I said they could do additional replications.  Napoleon has never responded.  The lab director responded on the deadline saying the ms had some basic issues that needed to be addressed (without mentioning them) and said they analyzed my data and didn’t see significant results for the main effect I was testing.  He asked that I send him the data because he was missing some data (he has never identified what data he doesn’t have, but I suspect it’s the final rep).

2)   I removed their names from authorship of the ms for which I said they could do new replications since they never had any input (except funding and saying I should do more reps).  I sent the ms we’ve been negotiating about to one of their colleagues who regularly publishes with them and an editor of the target journal for an informal review.  They both said it was publishable and ready for submission.  I also sent my data to a stats expert who verified that my stats are correct.

3)   I e-mailed the lab director telling him of these independent reviews and said I would only send him the data 1) after he sent me a revised version of the ms so I knew what other basic issues needed addressed (and so that he would not keep trying to delay submission with new issues each month) and 2) when he agreed to have the data analyzed by a statistician (because even if he’s missing a rep, the main effect is highly significant, so he’s obviously doing the stats incorrectly and I don’t want to delay the ms by arguing over incorrect stats).  I also told him that I got the sense he was purposely delaying the ms either because my results conflict with his previously published work or because I left the postdoc before the end of my term.

4)   The lab director has refused my requests and just keeps asking for the complete data set and I keep refusing to send it because, as previously mentioned, I think all of this is an attempt to steal my work, remove me from first authorship, or shove it all in a drawer.  I told him I need reassurance that he will make an honest effort to publish this ms (and he has given me none).

So, my options are to take this to the department chair or Vice Chancellor for Research (but all I’ve really got is a pattern of delay, not outright, black-and-white misconduct, and universities are typically set-up to protect their own), move on and let the project die (as I said in the original post, I don’t really need the publication, but it’s a worthy pub that took a lot of time and I suspect they will probably publish without me in the future, which is another reason not to send them the data), or remove their names from authorship and submit this ms without them.  I did this last option with the other paper because it was a clear-cut case that they had no input to warrant authorship.  With this project that we keep arguing about, it’s a gray area.  The lab director has really had no input.  However, this is how Napoleon and I contributed.  Napoleon said I should test this idea; I designed, tested, analyzed and wrote up experiment 1.  Napoleon suggested experiment 2, identified the test subjects, and helped collect some data (very, very minimal) and I designed, tested, analyzed, and wrote up experiment 2 (and the ms).  I think Napoleon’s contributions could all be listed in the acknowledgments, except that he had the original idea.  In science I give great credit to the person with the idea and usually think they deserve to be an author (unless they “gift” the idea, which was not the case here).  I’m not worried about the fallout if I don’t get a recommendation from the lab director (I didn’t use him as a reference for my current job and I have a lot of strong referees), however, I am still early in my career and don’t want allegations of ethical misconduct.  I’d love to hear what everyone else thinks I should do.

[geonerd]

or remove their names from authorship and submit this ms without them. 

I would do this. You have made several attempts to engage them, and they have not responded in a constructive manner.

I think Napoleon’s contributions could all be listed in the acknowledgments, except that he had the original idea.  In science I give great credit to the person with the idea and usually think they deserve to be an author (unless they “gift” the idea, which was not the case here).

I understand and agree with this sentiment. I too would offer, and prefer, "courtesy authorship" in this situation. However, it's not required in my opinion. Mentioning Napolean and Lab Director in the acknowledgements as Polly suggested up-thread is sufficient, and cite their work liberally.

I'd write to the lab director and Napolean and say you are sorry that they have chosen not to participate in this manuscript, but you understand their decision and busy schedules. Offer to send them a preprint and the dataset as soon as the review process permits (code for, I'll send you everything after its published).

Be sure to ask the editor NOT to send it to these two as reviewers due to conflict of interest.

Good luck.

[terpsichore]

If you collected data in a lab, funded by the lab director, the data likely belongs to the lab/university, not  to you. You could be forced to give the data to your ex-advisor. So it's worthwhile to try to resolve this with a publication (with or without the lab director as author.)  Does the university have an ombudsman who could mediate this dispute?

[sciencephd]

Obviously the environment is/was completely toxic and dysfunctional, and thus your best bet may be to just walk away from this.  It may have been a mistake to directly refuse to send the data, as this clearly puts you in the wrong (even if you are justified to not trust them, which I think is in fact justified) as the data belong to the lab.

Ignore a couple of emails.  If they continue to contact you, it may then be possible to negotiate something with them that you can both agree to.

The bottom line is that if they don't want the paper published, it will be essentially impossible for you to publish it.

[onthefringe]

If you collected data in a lab, funded by the lab director, the data likely belongs to the lab/university, not  to you. You could be forced to give the data to your ex-advisor.

+1

There's probably no way around it, and you may have violated regulations by removing the data from the lab in the first place. Don't give the university this to use as a justification to support your advisor and dismiss your (very valid) issues. terpsichores idea of an ombudsman might be a good one.

[hoptoad]

I have been talking to folks in the Chancellor's Office that oversees research.  They have advised me that the lab should get a copy of the data, but that I have as much of a right to it as the lab does since I collected it.  For now they have advised me NOT to give it to the lab until assurances are made that they will publish because the Chancellor's Office, too, is concerned about the pattern of behavior in that lab with my data and lack of publishing.  So, I am going to try one more time to work it out with the lab director.  If that doesn't work, I will have the Chancellor's office mediate.  If that doesn't work, then eventually I may publish by myself (which the Chancellor's Office said I could do because the university simply follow the publishing standards of the scientific field, they don't have an overriding university policy).

[87735501111]

Great strategy, and this sounds very responsible. Thanks for giving us the update.

[larryc]

the Chancellor's Office, too, is concerned about the pattern of behavior in that lab

Sounds like the Chancellor's office is on the ball.

[sagit]

I have been talking to folks in the Chancellor's Office that oversees research.  They have advised me that the lab should get a copy of the data, but that I have as much of a right to it as the lab does since I collected it.  For now they have advised me NOT to give it to the lab until assurances are made that they will publish because the Chancellor's Office, too, is concerned about the pattern of behavior in that lab with my data and lack of publishing.  So, I am going to try one more time to work it out with the lab director.  If that doesn't work, I will have the Chancellor's office mediate.  If that doesn't work, then eventually I may publish by myself (which the Chancellor's Office said I could do because the university simply follow the publishing standards of the scientific field, they don't have an overriding university policy).

Great!  I am glad to hear that there seems to be intelligent life in the Chancellor's Office.  Do you think the lab could scoop you on the findings from this paper?  That wasn't clear to me; you indicated that the director said that the findings were not significant (yet, they don't have the complete data set).  If they got their act together on the statistics, could drop you and publish while you wait for them to respond?

[afm_man]

So I have been following this thread because there are some eerily similar issues to a past story in a chemistry lab.  You should read the following and specifically the previous article regarding Schwartz and Mirkin:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7946/7946sci1.html

I suggest that you talk to the VP/Research office and fine out who is the lead person for RCR (Responsible Conduct of Research).  I assume your University has someone who handles this since it is required by the NSF and NIH.  I'd ask them specifically about authorship (they might default to the NIH RCR)

Your best bet is to reach some agreement in this situation before doing anything.  You can be accused of research misconduct by just deleting authors in addition to potential legal aspects mentioned in the article (depending on which view you take but I would not want to be the guinea pig).

Best of luck.

[hoptoad]

Do you think the lab could scoop you on the findings from this paper?  That wasn't clear to me; you indicated that the director said that the findings were not significant (yet, they don't have the complete data set).  If they got their act together on the statistics, could drop you and publish while you wait for them to respond?

Yes, they could scoop me, which has been part of my concern from the beginning.  However, my best guess is that they are actually trying to bury the work.  If they do scoop me, I have them dead to rights on scientific misconduct (according to university policy).  Two abstracts of this work are readily available on-line (from presentations at meetings), I've given the draft to two reviewers, and contacted the Chancellor's Office about the situation, so it's pretty obvious that it's my work.

So I have been following this thread because there are some eerily similar issues to a past story in a chemistry lab.  You should read the following and specifically the previous article regarding Schwartz and Mirkin:

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/topstory/7946/7946sci1.html

I suggest that you talk to the VP/Research office and fine out who is the lead person for RCR (Responsible Conduct of Research).  I assume your University has someone who handles this since it is required by the NSF and NIH.  I'd ask them specifically about authorship (they might default to the NIH RCR)

Your best bet is to reach some agreement in this situation before doing anything.  You can be accused of research misconduct by just deleting authors in addition to potential legal aspects mentioned in the article (depending on which view you take but I would not want to be the guinea pig).

Best of luck.

There are some similarities, but it sounds like the other lab members in that article had much more involvement in that paper than is the case here (and much more at stake since there were patents, too).  What I think is ironic about that story is that it talks in length about the lack of communicating research ethics.  In my situation, I am the only one of the group who has training in research ethics.  I sat down with the lab director when I started in the lab to get his policy on authorship, only to be told by everyone else that he doesn't follow what he says.  I then found that out firsthand when I tried to publish my first paper, which led to a lengthy discussion about authorship in which he changed his policy and I clarified the standards in the field.

The Chancellor's office for research hasn't found any fault with anything I've done and verified that I could publish this paper on my own.  I am trying to reach an agreement, however, just because I would like to give the lab authorship credit and to avoid mudslinging (even if it ultimately doesn't stick, I don't want to have to deal with it this early in my career).