Publication ethics and authorship guidelines

Question

[Gene-ticks]

Hi Everyone, I apologise if this is not the right place to discuss about this issue here. I had worked in one research centre for about a year, but after having some dissensions with my supervisor, I had to quit the job. However, during that time I had worked really hard and was also able to develop a method which I think has huge implication in Bioinformatics. I have already prepared the manuscript from this work, but this method was validated using the genome data (a few hundred genomes) sequenced in her lab. Additionally, she also provided me guidance while writing this manuscript. Now, I want to submit the paper along with her and I think this paper can be published in a fairly good journal, but she keeps asking me to do more analysis that I think is not feasible at this point as I have to find another job and start new projects. Could someone please suggest me any option I have at this point? Can I submit the paper without her agreeing completely on what I have done in the manuscript so far? Or would she be able to refrain me from publishing this manuscript (if that's her intention)? I would like to know the publication ethics surrounding such situation. Thanks.

[Pierre Lindenbaum]

you could also ask: https://academia.stackexchange.com/

• https://academia.stackexchange.com/search?q=publishing+advisor
• Publishing my work without advisor https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/31266/publishing-my-work-without-advisor

Answer 1

[Jean-Karim Heriche]

First thing, do not publish without all authors consent, this would not end well. Also do not publish without giving appropriate credit where it is due, i.e. do not omit from the author's list people who made significant contributions. This is unethical. You may be able to get away with it but these things tend to get known and this will catch up with you at some point.
It seems to me the best solution is to find some middle ground. If your former supervisor thinks that some more work is needed, she is probably right and you should seriously consider the implications of not doing it. Communication is the key. Try not to get feelings involved and stick to the science. Consider that both of you gain by getting the work published and that you both lose by not publishing it. Here are some points to consider: Is the paper publishable in its current state and are you disagreeing on the venue (e.g. she wants more work done because she wants the paper to go to a particular journal) ? What are the loose ends in the manuscript ? How can they be tightened ? Can some of these wait until a reviewer asks for it without increasing the risks of the paper being rejected ? Could you get the manuscript informally reviewed by a third party ? Could someone else contribute by doing the extra analysis ?