Problems with my PI and paper publication

[devildoc2]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Here's the timeline:

1) I submit the original paper for publication

2) The reviewers said I needed minor modifications: the original paper was too long and should be cut down by 1/3

3) I follow their suggestions and cut it down

4) I resubmit, and its accepted

Now my ******* PI wants me to write the journal and tell them that should accept the original uncut paper because there are too many important themes and data left out in the cut version.

I just want this damn thing published. I'd like to have the original uncut version published, but the reviewers EXPLICITLY STATED that the length needed to be cut down by 1/3

There are 4 authors on this paper, including the PI. The other 3 authors are fine with teh cut version, its just my ******* PI (who contributed NOTHING to this research, BTW) who now wants me to argue with the journal about this.

I'm thinking about telling him to **** off. I'm leaving his lab so he cant hurt me in the future. This is my paper, the only reason he's on it to begin with is because the PI always gets put in regardless of what they actually contribute.

The original uncut paper was 15 figures and almost 6000 words long. Thats far beyond the regular lengths of papers published in this journal (there are no hard limits given by the journal). I'm starting to think my PI is an idiot. I know this research a LOT better than he does. He barely reads these papers anyways, he doesnt have an indepth understanding of exactly what was written.

 

[structurelab]

I would do as he/she asked and get in touch with the editor. Chances are you're not going to be able to write the paper anymore concise than it is and it will be published as is. HOWEVER, I would suggest you don't burn bridges this early in your career. You may be leaving the lab, but who's to say this PI won't be evaluating your grant in the future or have connections to someone who is. Hell, he/she may even be the reviewer of one of your papers in the future. Bottom line, don't piss anyone off. But, this is only my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

 

[devildoc2]

I would do as he/she asked and get in touch with the editor. Chances are you're not going to be able to write the paper anymore concise than it is and it will be published as is. HOWEVER, I would suggest you don't burn bridges this early in your career. You may be leaving the lab, but who's to say this PI won't be evaluating your grant in the future or have connections to someone who is. Hell, he/she may even be the reviewer of one of your papers in the future. Bottom line, don't piss anyone off. But, this is only my opinion. Take it for what it's worth.

So you think the reviewer will say "I was wrong hte first time, the paper is not too long, we'll publish it"?

I read the reviews, and they seemed pretty adamant that it was too long. I dont know of any journals that will accept 15 figures for a single paper. When I submitted the original longer paper I was under the impression the reviewers would tell me EXACTLY which areas were weak and needed to be cut. But they didnt do that.

My real question is, whats my exposure here? If the journal publishes the cut version, can my PI thru spite and anger cause it to be un-published?

 

[BDavis]

So you think the reviewer will say "I was wrong hte first time, the paper is not too long, we'll publish it"?

I read the reviews, and they seemed pretty adamant that it was too long. I dont know of any journals that will accept 15 figures for a single paper. When I submitted the original longer paper I was under the impression the reviewers would tell me EXACTLY which areas were weak and needed to be cut. But they didnt do that.

My real question is, whats my exposure here? If the journal publishes the cut version, can my PI thru spite and anger cause it to be un-published?

If the journal has a supplemental figure submission, perhaps you can strike a compromise by using the additional figures as supplemental figures. Depending on the editor, if you make too many changes or significantly alter the text of the paper, they may send it out for additional reviews (such as going back to the original review). However, if you add a supplement, maybe you, your PI and the editor can compromise.

 

[Vader]

So you think the reviewer will say "I was wrong hte first time, the paper is not too long, we'll publish it"?

I read the reviews, and they seemed pretty adamant that it was too long. I dont know of any journals that will accept 15 figures for a single paper. When I submitted the original longer paper I was under the impression the reviewers would tell me EXACTLY which areas were weak and needed to be cut. But they didnt do that.

My real question is, whats my exposure here? If the journal publishes the cut version, can my PI thru spite and anger cause it to be un-published?

Does the journal allow for supplemental figures? You might consider doing that if there is supporting data that is not essential to the punchline of the paper, but that would help interpretation. Then you could reference these supplemental figures in the text.

 

[structurelab]

My real question is, whats my exposure here? If the journal publishes the cut version, can my PI thru spite and anger cause it to be un-published?

I would seriously doubt your PI would do such a thing. I've never heard of a PI "taking back" an already accepted paper. Actually, after the copyrights have been signed, I doubt there is little one can do about it. But, who am I to say.
In my previous reply, I simply meant that in order to keep your PI happy, you should get in touch with the editor and tell them your situation and see what can be done. The other posters gave good advise about supplemental figures. I didn't think of that.
My main point was to see if the article can be shortened but still have the same information - only in a more consise manner than it already is AND to not burn bridges.

 

[marionseven14]

Are there two stories within the paper that could be made into two separate papers? It would take more work writing, but then more publications for you and the lab, with no lost information.

 

[logos]

Are there two stories within the paper that could be made into two separate papers? It would take more work writing, but then more publications for you and the lab, with no lost information.

That sounds like it might be your best option. If you dont mind holding off awhile you could try and get two papers published back to back, which is considered very prestigious.

 

[tr]

Why don't you try to convince your PI in a diplomatic manner that he should be the one to call the editor, since he is the senior author on the paper and anyway carries more clout than you do? Let him fight with the editor; you can just stay out of it.

There's no advantage for your PI in 'taking back' the paper. I don't see what his motivation could be for doing such a thing.

 

[Science_Guy]

That sounds like it might be your best option. If you dont mind holding off awhile you could try and get two papers published back to back, which is considered very prestigious.

I agree with this option.....negotiate with your PI and see if you need to collect some additional data first, but getting two papers is NOT bad thing and is good for you. However, I would recommend submitting to a different journal, OR using the newer paper as a follow on to the first in original journal, although many authors will usually delineate ahead of time that it is a two-part publication (and usually submit both parts at the same time).

Best of luck.