So Raynee's post reminded me of my own little dilemma regarding a publication so I've decided to create a separate thread asking for advice on this one, rather than hijack hers🙂
Basically, I have a chance to write what would probably be categorized somewhere between a methods paper and a product review. Would likely be first, POSSIBLY second author.
The short explanation of what is going on is that we spent thousands of dollars buying a measurement device that was supposed to help us with our clinical trial. Turns out that it was a well-marketed piece of garbage, that is now collecting dust in a filing cabinet. It barely works at all, collects inaccurate data when it collects ANY data, does little of what we were promised it would, the data cannot be extracted and we ended up throwing out a substantial portion of data because of this.
Basically, we are annoyed if not downright pissed, and considering writing a review/methods paper about this experience to warn other researchers away. I'm debating the value of doing this for several reasons. For starters, it obviously wouldn't be an empirical paper so I'm not sure how "good" it would look, though we could probably still get it published in a mid-level journal. My bigger concern is that my first ever publication will be one basically attacking a corporation (albeit a tiny one). Its not like I'm well-established in the field already, and I'm wary of angering these folks since who knows if they will scrape together a GOOD product somewhere down the line that I could actually use.
On the other hand, they cost me countless unpaid hours of overtime, and I want to make sure other researchers don't make the same mistake I did.
Thoughts? Would writing something like this create problems in the future or is it unlikely since these folks are "outside" academia? Is it worth the risk for something that won't exactly be groundbreaking but would at least be a publication, or am I better off just waiting and writing up the data from the study once completed?
Basically, I have a chance to write what would probably be categorized somewhere between a methods paper and a product review. Would likely be first, POSSIBLY second author.
The short explanation of what is going on is that we spent thousands of dollars buying a measurement device that was supposed to help us with our clinical trial. Turns out that it was a well-marketed piece of garbage, that is now collecting dust in a filing cabinet. It barely works at all, collects inaccurate data when it collects ANY data, does little of what we were promised it would, the data cannot be extracted and we ended up throwing out a substantial portion of data because of this.
Basically, we are annoyed if not downright pissed, and considering writing a review/methods paper about this experience to warn other researchers away. I'm debating the value of doing this for several reasons. For starters, it obviously wouldn't be an empirical paper so I'm not sure how "good" it would look, though we could probably still get it published in a mid-level journal. My bigger concern is that my first ever publication will be one basically attacking a corporation (albeit a tiny one). Its not like I'm well-established in the field already, and I'm wary of angering these folks since who knows if they will scrape together a GOOD product somewhere down the line that I could actually use.
On the other hand, they cost me countless unpaid hours of overtime, and I want to make sure other researchers don't make the same mistake I did.
Thoughts? Would writing something like this create problems in the future or is it unlikely since these folks are "outside" academia? Is it worth the risk for something that won't exactly be groundbreaking but would at least be a publication, or am I better off just waiting and writing up the data from the study once completed?
