- Joined
- Aug 14, 2021
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 114
Resolved, thanks!
Last edited:
Advice needed: disagreeing with co-author on paper
- Thread starter Biochemist3412
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2011
- Messages
- 20,346
- Reaction score
- 15,370
Maybe I don't understand this process... how did you choose 11 other people to "consult" if they are also authors of this manuscript?
We also have a student research forum. Maybe we could post this thread there?
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2021
- Messages
- 80
- Reaction score
- 114
These 11 authors are physicians I worked with previously, and I wanted their input on this paper I had been working on. So I did the data analysis and wrote the paper, then asked all these physicans to review and edit the paper in exchange for authorship. The corresponding author is a mentor from an institution I previously worked at that has agreed to be a part of this paper and has agreed to all revisions.
Yes feel free to move to the student research forum, I guess I wasn't aware that existed!
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2016
- Messages
- 468
- Reaction score
- 796
Where is the PI/corresponding author? They really should be the one handling the issue.
I witnessed a similar situation once in my lab, but in my case the difficult co-authors were all fine with the initial submission and then all of a sudden had concerns once the journal sent it back for minor revisions. There was some drama, and they kept coming up with additional concerns and delaying it for months. We brought on another co-author who was more of an expert than they were in the part of the paper where they had concerns, and he eventually won them over and helped it over the line.
To be fair, there is something to be said for additional perspectives and genuinely trying to make the paper better – sometimes you have to humble yourself, acknowledge that you really can make it better, and accept the criticisms even though they can sting.
Ours was an absolutely horrible experience, and there wasn't an easy answer to a mostly political problem. I obviously can't say what's really going on in your situation, but your PI really should be taking the lead on handling it.
I witnessed a similar situation once in my lab, but in my case the difficult co-authors were all fine with the initial submission and then all of a sudden had concerns once the journal sent it back for minor revisions. There was some drama, and they kept coming up with additional concerns and delaying it for months. We brought on another co-author who was more of an expert than they were in the part of the paper where they had concerns, and he eventually won them over and helped it over the line.
To be fair, there is something to be said for additional perspectives and genuinely trying to make the paper better – sometimes you have to humble yourself, acknowledge that you really can make it better, and accept the criticisms even though they can sting.
Ours was an absolutely horrible experience, and there wasn't an easy answer to a mostly political problem. I obviously can't say what's really going on in your situation, but your PI really should be taking the lead on handling it.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2009
- Messages
- 3,085
- Reaction score
- 2,900
Sorry this is happening. I dealt with a difficult PI when I was in med school. It makes life so difficult since there is such a perceived (and pretty much true) power differential at work.
I would also recommend talking to your corresponding author/mentor about it. Depending on how much the one author has contributed, you might reach out to them in a diplomatic way and explain that you have edited the manuscript extensively at this point and not sure how much more you can do. I think you have a few options. One might be to ask that author if they have someone who they might recommend to contribute/edit. It might make them more agreeable to sign off on a final. The risk here is that the person might edit it in a way you are not happy with.
This sounds blunt, but if they did not contribute much (like they did not give you any hard data or contribute much in the way of the academic portion), you can tell them you have edited extensively, plan to submit, and if they still are not happy with it, you could remove them as an author. Usually this goes the other way where authors remove themselves if they are not happy with the data/manuscript. It would be tough for you to word this proposition in a way that sounds diplomatic (even if being diplomatic is fully your intention).
Again, in the end, I agree with JoaoMoutinho: I'd consult with your corresponding author and get their advice/assistance.
I would also recommend talking to your corresponding author/mentor about it. Depending on how much the one author has contributed, you might reach out to them in a diplomatic way and explain that you have edited the manuscript extensively at this point and not sure how much more you can do. I think you have a few options. One might be to ask that author if they have someone who they might recommend to contribute/edit. It might make them more agreeable to sign off on a final. The risk here is that the person might edit it in a way you are not happy with.
This sounds blunt, but if they did not contribute much (like they did not give you any hard data or contribute much in the way of the academic portion), you can tell them you have edited extensively, plan to submit, and if they still are not happy with it, you could remove them as an author. Usually this goes the other way where authors remove themselves if they are not happy with the data/manuscript. It would be tough for you to word this proposition in a way that sounds diplomatic (even if being diplomatic is fully your intention).
Again, in the end, I agree with JoaoMoutinho: I'd consult with your corresponding author and get their advice/assistance.
