PhD/PsyD Help! Publishing an article that was previously rejected

[Biopsychosocialmodel]

My supervisor gave me a paper that someone she knows has attempted to publish (I was not involved in this project and neither is my supervisor, I believe). This article was reviewed and rejected by two journals. In short, this paper would need significant improvements in rationale, writing, and potentially a different statistical approach in order to be published.

What are some things I should consider in deciding if I should try to convert this paper into a publishable manuscript?

Thank you in advance for your advice! (please kindly do not quote me in your reply as it gets confusing for me to read)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

Can you clarify what it is you are looking for and what you mean by "things to consider"?

The situation sounds strange unless this is a close collaborator and the other individuals involved will still be included as co-authors. Otherwise, it frankly sounds like plagiarism. Is that what you are asking about?

Otherwise, if it seems like a worthwhile project - look at the reviews, fix it up and get it back out there. If it seems like a junk pilot study that probably shouldn't be published, consider investing your energy elsewhere.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

Can you clarify what it is you are looking for and what you mean by "things to consider"?

The situation sounds strange unless this is a close collaborator and the other individuals involved will still be included as co-authors. Otherwise, it frankly sounds like plagiarism. Is that what you are asking about?

Otherwise, if it seems like a worthwhile project - look at the reviews, fix it up and get it back out there. If it seems like a junk pilot study that probably shouldn't be published, consider investing your energy elsewhere.

Basically this. I've been asked to help re-write/re-frame an article or two that had previously been rejected, but the person asking was always the PI on the original paper and had gotten permission from the other authors involved to bring me in. I'd say it sounds like you have a good idea of what it is you'll need to potentially do, which will probably include gathering updated references, and possibly changing the scope, direction, and/or message of the paper.

I'd also recommend establishing author order ahead of time, as this should be cleared with the other original authors involved in the project.

 

[Wendi22]

I'd also recommend establishing author order ahead of time, as this should be cleared with the other original authors involved in the project.

I have worked on articles for people that did the research before I came along but did not want to write the paper up for publication. Therefore, I agreed to write it. Everyone involved in original project was asked ahead of time and authorship was determined before I started writing. It was a lot of work so I would ask first to make sure you will be near top of authorship for your efforts.

 

[deleted343839]

If you are doing a major overhaul of a paper, especially in terms of conceptualization and statistical analysis, and you're doing the bulk of the re-write, you should be first author.

 

[Wendi22]

If you are doing a major overhaul of a paper, especially in terms of conceptualization and statistical analysis, and you're doing the bulk of the re-write, you should be first author.

You actually hit on something I have been wondering about. For one of my first publications, I agreed to write the paper and to NOT be first author. My logic at the time was that I was new to the publishing process and would need a lot of assistance from the first author. Although I did get the first author's feedback and assistance throughout the process, I wrote the paper and put in LOTS of work! This was a while ago but as I move forward in my career I think back to that and wonder whether or not I got shorted. Would just be nice to know for future negotiations.

 

[MCParent]

If you are doing a major overhaul of a paper, especially in terms of conceptualization and statistical analysis, and you're doing the bulk of the re-write, you should be first author.

I'd say it depends on too much to ever be able say from the limited data presented. Different people also vary widely in their concept of "major overhaul" or "significant improvements."

 

[Justanothergrad]

If you are doing a major overhaul of a paper, especially in terms of conceptualization and statistical analysis, and you're doing the bulk of the re-write, you should be first author.

My view has always been if you are rewriting a dead paper, take first because I would rather be second on a published paper than first on an unpublished one. I like when people are open to picking up dead papers that have a future.. its just better all around.

 

[Wendi22]

My view has always been if you are rewriting a dead paper, take first because I would rather be second on a published paper than first on an unpublished one. I like when people are open to picking up dead papers that have a future.. its just better all around.

Not sure if I completely get what you are trying to say but I think I agree. I wrote the paper and was second author. However, my fellow authors are good company to have your name next to so if I had declined the deal another student would have surely stepped up and wrote it. It was by no means a dead paper/ topic. The main people involved had other studies to write up and needed help writing this one. Sometimes it seems like you have to weigh the pros and cons but in my case I think it would have been a shame to miss the opportunity/ learning experience.

 

[deleted343839]

I'd say it depends on too much to ever be able say from the limited data presented. Different people also vary widely in their concept of "major overhaul" or "significant improvements."

I guess, though in this case it sounds like the changes (eg, re-doing the stats) go beyond the cosmetic. Personally, I'd never pick up an orphaned paper for less than first authorship. It usually turns out to be more work than it seems at first glance.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I guess, though in this case it sounds like the changes (eg, re-doing the stats) go beyond the cosmetic. Personally, I'd never pick up an orphaned paper for less than first authorship. It usually turns out to be more work than it seems at first glance.

Same...but depending where the person is in their training, this may be a worthwhile opportunity.

 

[Justanothergrad]

I think it also depends on how much guidance the other authors can offer during the process to make it more a learning experience versus a publication grind.

http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf

Sometimes a useful resource if you need an objective way to do it. Its not perfect, but some may find this useful.

 

[deleted343839]

Same...but depending where the person is in their training, this may be a worthwhile opportunity.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which a person who picks up a dead paper, substantially re-writes the text and re-analyzes the data, and sees it through peer review, revisions, and eventual publication merits less than first authorship. I'm skeptical because this sounds like one of those situations that could put a trainee at risk of getting less credit/compensation/recognition than they deserve (sort of like offering writers peanuts in exchange for "exposure"). Others may disagree, but I wouldn't sign off on a potential time suck like this for my trainee for less than first authorship. I would, however, assess whether this is even a good idea to take on, and make it clear to the trainee the nature of the commitment.

I suppose I could see a mentor really diving in to save the paper if the trainee gets too far over his/her head and isn't able to deliver. That's not good mentoring IMO, but I guess it's possible that in such a case the trainee could then get middle authorship.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which a person who picks up a dead paper, substantially re-writes the text and re-analyzes the data, and sees it through peer review, revisions, and eventual publication merits less than first authorship.

I agree in principle, I think the issue is just where the line is drawn with regards to "re-write and re-analyze." Like MCParent said, I've seen people all over the map on what that actually means. Fixing some language issues and adding a paragraph? That's not a substantial rewrite in my book. Completely starting over the intro and conclusion? That obviously is. Re-running the same stats syntax with an outlier removed? That's not a big deal in my eyes. Realizing that the entire analytic plan is flawed, the wrong covariates were used, we need to run a random effects model because the new ones are time-varying, etc.? That is.

Just depends on what we are dealing with and I'm not sure that is entirely clear.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which a person who picks up a dead paper, substantially re-writes the text and re-analyzes the data, and sees it through peer review, revisions, and eventual publication merits less than first authorship.

I agree that first authorship should be in place, my point was more about going through the hassle of reviving/redoing a paperwork. Someone who is 3-5 or 10+ years in probably wouldn't want to deal with it (I wouldn't), but someone still in grad school or newly out may be more willing.