Dr. Isis is back on the email answering bandwagon and was happily plugging away, answering an email about gender and race and science, when this little gem popped into my email box:
Dr. Isis, I am writing you because after reading your blog for almost a year now, I see you have impeccable taste and wonderful advice! Let me get to the point because I know you have a busy life:
I and another graduate student in my lab have been working on an abstract submission for a REGIONAL conference over the past month. The deadline is tomorrow. Our PI has known about our abstract for this entire month. She put off reading our draft until JUST this past Wednesday when she was at a meeting OVERSEAS.. and she is still there. Now, of course, she is fretting about our sample size and bringing up issues that she should have noticed a while ago. She is also now ignoring our emails despite the deadline in 24 hours.
We have collected, analyzed, lit-reviewed, and written this entire project. It just happened to be in HER lab. We are not trying to publish a paper in Nature or anything--it's just a poster presentation at a regional conference that we want to go to.
Is it totally unacceptable to email her ass over in foreign country and tell her that we are submitting it whether or not we hear from her? We have nothing to lose, in our opinions. The worst that can happen is it gets rejected. I feel really bad especially for my partner in this--as she is a full time student with an internship at a fancy hospital and research position on TOP OF 2 TODDLERS. She's spent so much time on this and is really upset, as am I.
Help!! The deadline is in 1 day!
~One of your many loyal readers
Oh, dearest little muffin. Dearest, most darling little muffin. If I could reach out and give you a hug and a cupcake, I totally would. Especially since you are not going to like what I have to say to you. Still, I am going to be as kind as I possibly can be....
Don't do it! For the love of God, don't do it!
Figure 1: Noooooooo!
Beyond anything else I am about to tell you, it is inappropriate to submit anything anywhere with an author listed who did not agree to have the item submitted. Completely inappropriate. In that sense, your question reads like a textbook question from an ethics and science class. If you are ready to submit that abstract with authors that read...
One L. Reader, Partner I. Crime, and Absent P. Investigator
Department of Totally Hot Science, Major Research University
Middle of Nowhere Town, One of the 50 States, USA
...and AP Investigator did not approve, then just don't do it. Enough said.
There are so many things in your email that I want to address because I can tell how emotionally invested in this project you are. I know nothing about your relationship with your advisor. She could the most supportive mentor ever or she could be a complete lunatic. Because you've told me nothing about your relationship, I am going to operate from the position that she has an interest in seeing you succeed.
With those assumptions in mind, let's more carefully address some of the major issues....
1) She put off reading our draft until JUST this past Wednesday when
she was at a meeting OVERSEAS.. and she is still there. Now, of course,
she is fretting about our sample size and bringing up issues that she
should have noticed a while ago. She is also now ignoring our emails
despite the deadline in 24 hours.
It could be that you and your advisor are working on different clocks. Maybe this is your first abstract while your advisor has submitted 1x10^fucktillion abstracts? These days I don't even begin writing an abstract until several days before it is due (not that I haven't been planning what would go in it for some time beforehand) and I have been known to submit the abstract at 4:50 pm when it is due at 5:00 pm.
Then, of course, I steam when I get the inevitable email from one Dr. Martin Frank saying that the abstract deadline has been extended for all the slackers...but, I digress.
I also wonder why you think she has begun ignoring you? I happened to catch this reader's email quickly because I was at my computer, but I have been known to step away and not reply in less than 15 minutes. Perhaps she's busy with the meeting?
2) We have collected, analyzed, lit-reviewed, and written this entire project. It just happened to be in HER lab.
Oh dear.
I know that both DrugMonkey/PhysioProf and I have talked about this before, but I will say it again for any of my newer readers. A senior author need not have collected the data herself to warrant authorship. The job of the principal investigator is to create the intellectual environment and provide the resources necessary for you to crank out your smoking hot data. Let me ask you this - Would you have been able to do this project if you weren't in her lab? Would you have asked the question if you weren't in her lab? Would you have had the resources available to do the project if you weren't in her lab? Did she add anything to the design or the abstract? If so, then she is an author. See my initial response about your responsibility to your coauthors.
3) Now, of course, she is fretting about our sample size and bringing up issues that she should have noticed a while ago.
This is the real meat of the matter and I want you to re-read your own sentence carefully. Your advisor has scientific issues with a piece of work that you are going to try to submit. Work that other people will interpret and use in their own work. Work that will become part of the public record. Maybe she should have noticed them before, but the reality is that she has noticed them now and all of your names will be attached to this project. It is never acceptable to submit science that you do not have confidence in. When you submit a piece of work that is scientifically problematic, the people in your field still read it. People who you will maybe someday ask to employ you and her colleagues who will judge her. Do you really want to submit potentially second rate science? I see two potential solutions here. You either figure out how to fix the abstract in a way that addresses these problems, or you fix it and submit it to another meeting. Maybe revised science, with these issues corrected, is submittable to a national meeting?
4) Is it totally unacceptable to email her ass over in foreign country and tell her that we are submitting it whether or not we hear from her? We have nothing to lose, in our opinions. The worst that can happen is it gets rejected.
Nope, this is not the worst thing that could happen. The worst thing that could happen is that you submit this abstract, contrary to the wishes of one of the authors, and she says "peace out" to both of you. Cause, I'm not going to lie, that's what I would do. If I had a student who did something after I had specifically raised concerns, it would be the very last day she worked with me.
5) I feel really bad especially for my partner in this--as she is a full time student with an internship at a fancy hospital and research position on TOP OF 2 TODDLERS. She's spent so much time on this and is really upset, as am I.
This is where, my little muffin, I tell you to sack up. In your own words, you've been working on this for a month. A month in graduate student years feels like forever, but in the overall timeline of your career, it's a drop in the bucket. You both need to take a deep breath, relax, and work on creating a submission that your advisor is excited to submit. It might take longer than you had hoped, but if it's really an important project you'll do it. And, it'll be a better submission. In the words of a great man, academic science is not a care bears fucking tea party, and you need to not base decisions on how bad you do or don't feel. No one cares about an abstract submitted because you felt bad - they care about the quality of the science. A regional meeting abstract is also not going to make or break your career.
So, if you and your coauthors can fix the abstract in time to submit it, congrats to you all. If not, let this one go and schedule an appointment with your advisor when she returns. Then, you can discuss your concerns with her and ask her how to improve the quality of this science in a way that she feels comfortable with.
But, for the love of all that is good and holy, do not submit that abstract until she gives it her blessing.
Figure 2: Sanctus, sanctus abstract.
It could be that you and your advisor are working on different clocks. Maybe this is your first abstract while your advisor has submitted 1x10^fucktillion abstracts? These days I don't even begin writing an abstract until several days before it is due (not that I haven't been planning what would go in it for some time beforehand) and I have been known to submit the abstract at 4:50 pm when it is due at 5:00 pm.
Then, of course, I steam when I get the inevitable email from one Dr. Martin Frank saying that the abstract deadline has been extended for all the slackers...but, I digress.
I also wonder why you think she has begun ignoring you? I happened to catch this reader's email quickly because I was at my computer, but I have been known to step away and not reply in less than 15 minutes. Perhaps she's busy with the meeting?
2) We have collected, analyzed, lit-reviewed, and written this entire project. It just happened to be in HER lab.
Oh dear.
I know that both DrugMonkey/PhysioProf and I have talked about this before, but I will say it again for any of my newer readers. A senior author need not have collected the data herself to warrant authorship. The job of the principal investigator is to create the intellectual environment and provide the resources necessary for you to crank out your smoking hot data. Let me ask you this - Would you have been able to do this project if you weren't in her lab? Would you have asked the question if you weren't in her lab? Would you have had the resources available to do the project if you weren't in her lab? Did she add anything to the design or the abstract? If so, then she is an author. See my initial response about your responsibility to your coauthors.
3) Now, of course, she is fretting about our sample size and bringing up issues that she should have noticed a while ago.
This is the real meat of the matter and I want you to re-read your own sentence carefully. Your advisor has scientific issues with a piece of work that you are going to try to submit. Work that other people will interpret and use in their own work. Work that will become part of the public record. Maybe she should have noticed them before, but the reality is that she has noticed them now and all of your names will be attached to this project. It is never acceptable to submit science that you do not have confidence in. When you submit a piece of work that is scientifically problematic, the people in your field still read it. People who you will maybe someday ask to employ you and her colleagues who will judge her. Do you really want to submit potentially second rate science? I see two potential solutions here. You either figure out how to fix the abstract in a way that addresses these problems, or you fix it and submit it to another meeting. Maybe revised science, with these issues corrected, is submittable to a national meeting?
4) Is it totally unacceptable to email her ass over in foreign country and tell her that we are submitting it whether or not we hear from her? We have nothing to lose, in our opinions. The worst that can happen is it gets rejected.
Nope, this is not the worst thing that could happen. The worst thing that could happen is that you submit this abstract, contrary to the wishes of one of the authors, and she says "peace out" to both of you. Cause, I'm not going to lie, that's what I would do. If I had a student who did something after I had specifically raised concerns, it would be the very last day she worked with me.
5) I feel really bad especially for my partner in this--as she is a full time student with an internship at a fancy hospital and research position on TOP OF 2 TODDLERS. She's spent so much time on this and is really upset, as am I.
This is where, my little muffin, I tell you to sack up. In your own words, you've been working on this for a month. A month in graduate student years feels like forever, but in the overall timeline of your career, it's a drop in the bucket. You both need to take a deep breath, relax, and work on creating a submission that your advisor is excited to submit. It might take longer than you had hoped, but if it's really an important project you'll do it. And, it'll be a better submission. In the words of a great man, academic science is not a care bears fucking tea party, and you need to not base decisions on how bad you do or don't feel. No one cares about an abstract submitted because you felt bad - they care about the quality of the science. A regional meeting abstract is also not going to make or break your career.
So, if you and your coauthors can fix the abstract in time to submit it, congrats to you all. If not, let this one go and schedule an appointment with your advisor when she returns. Then, you can discuss your concerns with her and ask her how to improve the quality of this science in a way that she feels comfortable with.
But, for the love of all that is good and holy, do not submit that abstract until she gives it her blessing.
Figure 2: Sanctus, sanctus abstract.
Education
Life Science
Comments
Once again, Dr. Isis gives fantastic advice!
I also worked for a PI who tended to procrastinate in approving abstract/posters/etc. A co-worker had been asking for our PI to look over her poster for weeks, she felt she couldn't wait anymore and had to print it without the PI's approval. She had included some inhibitor structures that were included on an unfinished patent application and my co-worker had to cover those parts of her poster with construction paper. She was then extremely embarrassed at the meeting and completely blamed our PI for not looking at the poster sooner. While our PI completely blamed the grad student for not waiting. Yes, it is annoying, but your PI has final say on anything you submit to the scientific community and therefore MUST wait for her approval. No matter how annoying waiting is, she is aware of your deadline and will get back to you within the deadline. If you have a day left, wait for the day! And if there is something very wrong with the data in your PI's opinion, fix it and submit your abstract to the next meeting, because there will be another one. There always is.
Posted by: seeree, phd | November 14, 2009 3:09 PM
Or maybe she has completely forgotten about it and will say "oops" a week after the deadline.
But even in that case, I agree with the post: nothing should be submitted unless all authors agree on it, and the PI is an author because she supervised the work (at least in theory). If it's the PI's fault that the abstract won't be submitted, too bad for her.
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 14, 2009 3:31 PM
Dr. Isis notes, "A senior author need not have collected the data herself to warrant authorship."
That said, a person should not get authorship because he or she is "the boss," wrote the grant that pays your salary. or provided resources. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has guidelines on who should qualify as an author (http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html)
"Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3."
Posted by: Zen Faulkes | November 14, 2009 3:33 PM
Once again, right on the money! The science will still be there when the PI comes home.
Posted by: joemac53 | November 14, 2009 3:48 PM
I am so incredibly happy that my very very hot science is so different from yours. In my field, the students would submit the paper without the advisor's surname anyway. And if there happened to be a mistake, it would be the advisor's fault anyway.
Posted by: Estraven | November 14, 2009 3:59 PM
It's a small regional conference right? Many of the small regional conferences I've been to have been pretty responsive to requests for an extension on deadlines. Most likely they have the deadline for printing reasons and if you submit afterwards your abstract won't make it into the publication but you can still present the poster and add it to your CV. Can't hurt to send the conference chair an email telling her the situation with your advisor being out of the country and ask for an extension. Worse that can happen is they say no.
Besides, the work you've done doesn't go bad. If it doesn't make it into a poster for this conference, there's always another conference coming up or maybe it'll just wait until the same conference next year.
Posted by: Stevo | November 14, 2009 5:13 PM
They did the entire project in the PI's lab, and the PI didn't provide input on sample size up front? Are they running their own private little operation? Did this project consume lab resources? If so, were I the PI, I'd be pissed.
Posted by: David | November 14, 2009 5:14 PM
Excellent advice. And do not hesitate, if it's for a regional conference, to ask for an extension on the abstract submission, saying that maybe your advisor is away and you need to make sure they approve of the work. It is far more important to submit an abstract that everyone is comfortable with.
Posted by: Scicurious | November 14, 2009 5:34 PM
I agree with your advice. I'd like to add, however, that authorship norms differ by field. For instance, Ecogeoman's field has a much less generous authorship standard, and he is likely to be sole author on most of the papers that come from his dissertation despite the work being funded, influenced, and vetted by his PI. On the other hand, I can't imagine a situation where I would have a solo author paper. So, it's possible that the opposite action could be appropriate. Of course, this person asked for your advice knowing your field. So whatevs.
Posted by: ecogeofemme | November 14, 2009 5:35 PM
Haven't time to read all this (work to do... even on Sundays...), but I absolutely agree: don't submit it without the approval of all authors.
As an example of an extreme case when I was a Ph.D. student: a potential collaborator in the USA managed to "grab" credit for my work making a particular database by publishing a joint paper by "forgetting" to ask me first. Needless to say, myself and my Ph.D. supervisor were miffed and cut off links to him. It's possible that he may have meant well, but you simply don't submit material without the explicit agreement of the other players.
Posted by: Heraclides | November 14, 2009 5:38 PM
I've just been through similar arguments regarding scientific ethics with my own students. Grrrr. If these two have been working on this for the past month unbeknownst to their PI, what the fuck happened to the work they were supposed to be doing? And who the fuck do they think paid for the stuff they were using to do this work? Unfuckingbelievable. This is a one way ticket to getting kicked out of grad school.
Posted by: Professor in Training | November 14, 2009 5:39 PM
My first response was actually the same as David's (#7). Well, that and the whole "the science will still be there when she gets back" idea too.
Posted by: muteKi | November 14, 2009 6:09 PM
Yes, PiT, because the ONLY science grad students should EVER do is EXACTLY what their PI tells them to. And where do you get this "unbeknownst to their PI" from??? "Our PI has known about our abstract for this entire month. "
They have been working on the ABSTRACT for a month. The abstract that is to a regional conference which is a HUGE DEAL to these two, and apparently UTTERLY UNIMPORTANT to the PI. Now, I don't think they should submit it without the approval of all authors, and just due to the input on sample size I'd say the PI meets the 'data analysis' criteria for authorship. So the muffin is stuck, barring a deadline extension (or her PI coming through in the last few hours, in which case, more power to the PI).
But I think the most likely scenario is that the PI let people in her lab put a lot of effort into something she doesn't give a rats ass about. It's bad mentorship, and if there was any justice it'd earn her a one way ticket to getting denied tenure.
@ David- isn't it possible the work is ready for a regional conference but not yet full publication, and they are going to do more samples? We don't know what kind of work it is; writing up data (even for 'just' a regional conference) before doing all the samples would be an extremely poor idea for 'samples' that come from live animals that all need to be treated in tandem. On the other hand, if the protocol necessarily involves multiple batches that take time to grow and that you can analyze as you go along, it's another matter.
Also Dr. Isis, I'm disgusted with your comment about the time involved. Grad students know perfectly well that a month is a drop in the bucket of their careers. But Moms also know perfectly well that if they have to miss the month their toddlers start to say "I love you" for the sake of some hot, hot science, it had BETTER do their career some good. The month is already spent. If the PI doesn't do her job, it'll have been wasted rather than invested.
Posted by: becca | November 14, 2009 7:00 PM
Woah, your response and these comments are quite emotionally loaded. I completely agree with the advice, but this is a very stressful situation for her, and I think she needs more guidance than ridicule. Probably many of you have been burned by unappreciative students; I get that. But it this trigger-happy attitude of "kick out the student/deny the prof tenure" (particularly in the comments) really necessary? We don't know all the particulars; why assume the worst?
Posted by: HGGirl | November 14, 2009 7:51 PM
You're wrong, becca. Not a one of us know what the PI's intent here is (ok, except for me who has corresponded with this letter writer, but I'll never tell). Let me offer you an equally more probable scenario. The PI read the abstract in the middle of being away at a conference, saw some promise in it, and realizing that some additional work could make it Nature or Science worthy, doesn't want these two blowing their wad submitting it half-assed to a regional conference. There are many conferences I submit to that require that the work not be previously published. So, perhaps submitting to this regional conference bars them from the hotter, more prestigious national conference and hot glamour pub. Maybe these two don't have the forsight to see that, but the PI will get back with them. Who really knows, but neither of us do for certain. Don't be so harsh to judge the PI, grad student becca. Kettle? Pot? Black?
You can be disgusted all you like, but it doesn't make my advice any less correct. If you expect every month of your scientific life to positively benefit your career, you're gonna be in for months of disappointment. I've got datasets full of data from experiments that went nowhere. All data that kept me away from my family, but that went nowehere none the less. I've also got data from those notebooks that I've gone back to years later and said, "Hm...maybe I was on to something" and that led me in a new direction. Spending a month on something, and being away from your child, doesn't give you carte blanche to publish crap.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 14, 2009 8:04 PM
becca (re #13) - It's clear from the letter that the grad students didn't have prospective agreement with the investigator on what sample size was necessary for for the work to be ready for publication. I don't know what kind of work you do, but in my field, sample size is prospectively specified in the research plan. I hope you don't think it's OK to do a little work, take a statistical peek, publish if it's good but if the p-value is a little above the magic 0.05, then do a little more. Go look up "bonferoni."
If the PI has grad students running experiments without pre-agreed sample sizes and pre-specified analysis plans, then the PI is at fault. If the grad students ran the experiment on their own, as the letter hints (not conclusively), then they're at fault.
Either way, the word in my mind is "sloppy", on both sides.
Posted by: David | November 14, 2009 8:54 PM
Dr. Isis, in truth, I'm not judging the PI for having different scientific priorities than the folks in the lab. I'm am judging the PI- a little bit- for not communicating those priorities. It's leaving people hanging that I consider A) poor management and B) rude.
And I'm judging you for having such a dismissive attitude toward the effort these two put in. I'm not saying spending a month on something means that the universe OWES you success, even if you sacrificed time with your children for it. I'm saying that a couple of diligent lab minions sacrificing a month to make a good publication means that the other co-authors OWE them reasonable assistance with publishing. Reasonable assistance will not, unfortunately, always mean making the deadline (particularly if there are scientific concerns). Reasonable assistance should, barring truly exceptional circumstances, mean communicating why the deadline cannot be made as early in the process as possible.
"It's clear from the letter that the grad students didn't have prospective agreement with the investigator on what sample size was necessary for for the work to be ready for publication."
You've never dealt with a PI that approved your experimental design and then later changed their mind right before publication? Bully for you. It's not always "clear" that's the case.
That said, if 'sloppy on both sides' is another way of saying 'lack of communication', then I'm inclined to see it your way.
Posted by: becca | November 14, 2009 9:31 PM
Becca, you're still making an assumption that the PI has left them hanging or that the PI won't help them publish it elsewhere. I mean, I could assume that my grandmother has balls and call her my grandfather, but that doesn't make it true (h/t PhysioProf). Again I will say, neither of us know all of the details of the interaction between these students and their PI, so for us to continue to read our own demons into the situation is fruitless. However, I will say again that if the PI reviewed this work and determined that it was flawed, then she has a responsibility to not submit it flawed, regardless of when she found the flaw.
I'm not being dismissive, I'm being honest. It may feel like our author put her month's worth of heart and soul into this work, but if it's flawed, it's not worth publishing anywhere. We can say that the PI should have done it sooner, or whatever, but it's still flawed. Now, I will agree with you that if the PI invested in this project then she has a responsibility to help the students find a reasonable home for it. Then again, if the project isn't going anywhere, the PI also has a responsibility to tell them to cut their losses and move on. Not every project ends in publication.
If that were the case, I'd have 5,000 publications by now.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 14, 2009 9:54 PM
It's not enough for a PI to be a benevolent shepherd. They need to be an honest leader, or at least a manager with some professionalism.
Why on earth would this person have written you if they didn't *FEEL* like they were left hanging? How would you feel in that situation?
And doesn't feeling like you are left hanging indicate some kind of communication failure? Which could, I suppose, be 100% the fault of the impatient lab minions. But in my experience, it's seldom useful or accurate to view communication failures as 100% either person's fault. From the data presented, I don't think the letter writer is expecting the PI to be at their beck and call or anything. Do you think expecting a PI to respond in this situation is unreasonable?
It's not dismissive to tell people that their project may not be publishable. It IS dismissive to tell them a month of their life doesn't matter... which may be how they are 'hearing' the PI's 'message' of not responding. And is certainly how "sack up" sounds.
Posted by: becca | November 14, 2009 10:49 PM
Sorry, becca. We just may not agree here. Neither one of us knows what happened between those two. The question was, submit with out the PI? The answer is no. Secondarily, a flawed study is a flawed study.
I never said the PI shouldn't respond, and maybe she has since this post, but it may also be that our author and her PI's timing expectations are different. Do we know that? Nope. So, let's move on.
Becca, you need to get over it and read what I said. I didn't say the month was unimportant, but I did say that relative to the scope of 4-6 years you're in graduate school, it's a drop in the bucket. It is literally 1-2% of your graduate school career and even less of your entire career. Just because you spent a month on something doesn't warrant its publication and telling someone to get over it and figure out how to publish it is perfectly reasonable advice.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 14, 2009 11:07 PM
"It's not enough for a PI to be a benevolent shepherd. They need to be an honest leader, or at least a manager with some professionalism."
Are you nuts? All a PI needs to do is bring in enough grant money to keep her career going.
Leadership is optional.
Professionalism is optional.
Ethics is optional.
Caring is fucking dreamland.
When I was a PhD student, I had a supervisor who made a career of commertializing all his student's research, an advisory committee member who's main goal was grabbing my ass, and two more committee members whose primary interest in me was as a lever to undermine each other's work.
The fact that this PI is actually taking an interest (albeit on a timescale inconvenient to the juniors) is great (assuming that she wasn't stalling them so that she could patent their work over their heads).
So, there is an argument for publishing the abstract and dumping the PI off the list. If you think the PI is trying to screw you. But if that is the case, don't expect to be on speaking terms with the PI after the abstract volume comes out. If these students trust theor PI, then they should wait. If they don't then they should leave anyway, and sending the abstract in may or may not help them out down the road (probably doesn't matter either way).
Posted by: Lab Lemming | November 14, 2009 11:21 PM
Your advice was perfectly sound. But if this was you 'being as kind as you possibly can be'... *shudder* Go play with physioprof, not innocent muffins.
(In other words, we agree on 1), 3), 4) and, in this particular case, 2). It's 5) that disgusts me)
Lab Lemming- as far as things Are, you are correct. Of course, I don't think you are referring to how things Should Be. Which is generally of concern to me. Though, regrettable as the behavior is, I'm still trying to understand:
1) supervise PhD students
2) ???
3) PROFIT!
Posted by: becca | November 14, 2009 11:35 PM
Sorry, becca. If you're waiting on a cupcake to make my advice more palatable, it's going to be a while.
Posted by: Isis the Scientist | November 15, 2009 12:20 AM
@becca I agree with you. I value Dr Isis' opinion as well (or else I would have never written to her) and of course the basic fact that it is not OK to submit without everyone's approval (although PI has submitted things that I am author on that I have NEVER seen). It comes down to how academia Should be and how it Is.
@David, of course we weren't running a study on our own! The sample issue is one that I can't talk about in more detail here, but it's not as bad as it sounds. Promise.
@HGGirl, I'm glad you caught the emotionally loaded tone of this discussion. Unappreciative students we are not. We have been verbal about how happy we are to have the opportunity. Unfortunately we are learning more about what not to do when managing a lab.
Posted by: authorofthisletter | November 15, 2009 1:08 AM
What strikes me in this story is how distressed the incipient scientists apparently feel. Shouldn't they be emphasizing the importance of their science, rather than their feelings about how quickly they get recognized? When I was a grad student in (don't snicker) French, my adviser noted on one of my papers, "On s'en fout de votre petit moi." Which means, more or less, "Who gives a flying fuck about your ego."
Posted by: montesquieu | November 15, 2009 8:28 AM
Having to contend with too many ethical cases associated with submissions to APS journals, I congratulate you on your advice. Too many authors fail to recognize that they are responsible for the content of the article/abstract, which results in many authors on articles who contributed little to their completion. At least tne student's advisor took responsiblitiy and essentially said that the science was weak. Now as for your advice to Dr. Frank, just consider the message to be a courtesy to all those who are slackers in the world, something you have never been known to be!
Posted by: Dr. J-B | November 15, 2009 8:34 AM
As someone who used 'unless you tell me otherwise, I will plan to submit [X] on [day]' (as a bluff) to provoke a response from my advisor successfully a handful of times during my PhD, I read this post expecting to disagree with Isis' advice, but it's spot-on as usual. To echo Stevo and Scicurious, another recourse is to ask the conference organizers for more time. I hope the situation resolved to the satisfaction of everyone concerned.
Posted by: scatterplot | November 15, 2009 8:42 AM
I would still think the most probable scenario is that the PI simply knows that deadlines, especially at small/regional conferences, are just some kind of guideline. I encountered the same thing when I was a Ph.D student:
Me (panicked voice) to my supervisor: "The conference deadline has passed? You did not submit our abstract?"
Supervisor (very slow, relaxed voice): " I never start writing an abstract before the deadline is over. So far, they all got accepted without trouble."
In the meantime, I have submitted lots of abstracts late to conferences, even big international ones. Never was any of them rejected because of not meeting the deadline.
Posted by: MartinB | November 15, 2009 8:53 AM
I've been on the end of waiting for PIs to get around to reading papers, etc...waiting on them for months (6+) while my career hung delicately in the balance. Some PIs just suck at time management. There is a fine art to managing time and not taking too many people/projects on -- some PIs have never learned the boundaries of their capabilities (or willingness to accept that they are human and need sleep, too!). And some PIs have weird control issues and seem to enjoy making their underlings squirm. I have experienced both scenarios.
I can tell you that yes, the waiting is frustrating, you feel disrespected and unimportant. You should be angry. However, you also have to suck it up and learn how to deal with this particular person's style. There are a few avenues you can try as I see it: 1) Figure out how you can discuss your expectations with your PI in a positive, non-critical manner (this is difficult and takes much thought and calmness), 2) Figure out how you can change your own expectations of the PIs lack of time management (or whatever the waiting stems from) by, perhaps, giving papers, etc to PI knowing that you won't see them again for 6 months (this sucks, I know) or 3) Figure out how to leave the PIs lab if you can't come to an agreement with the PI or learn to accept their style.
It is unethical to submit something without an author's approval, and although the PI might be slighting you and even hurting your career, if you stoop to submitting things without their knowledge or removing their name from said work, you are also committing an unethical act. Don't do it. Maintain your dignity and take your anger out in a spin class. Once you get to the PI stage you can be one of those blessed people who are into time management and are conscientious of their people's time, as well.
Posted by: gnuma | November 15, 2009 9:51 AM
25- Many people are socialized to think it is radically more egotistical to say "My hot, hot science might not get published!!!11 Oh NOES!" than "We slaved over this abstract for a month, despite Important Family Obligations, and we'd like to see it get published!". If you were not socialized this way, Bully For You.
28- this is a good point. One of the most surprising lessons I learned in graduate school is how many written rules are BS, and how many unwritten rules are utterly inflexible. Last year I organized an internal grad student research forum. I was surprised by the amount of calculation that went into when to notify the students, and renotify them, and renotify them, and the relationship of those times (or lack thereof) to when we actually needed the abstracts by.
Posted by: becca | November 15, 2009 11:28 AM
Hi,
didn't make it past the becca-isis exchange, and want to add my 5 cents.
When it comes to publishing science, it by no means can matter how much time was spend by whom on that publication, - if it's not good (and a small N is not good, as disappointing as it may be), it should not be published.
I am very much on the side of combining motherhood and science, but motherhood must never, ever be an excuse for publishing bad science!
This is exactly what gets us mothers in science into trouble, the idea that being a mother makes one deserve advantages of some kind.
So she has two toddlers - other people have three. Or none, but a dying parent. Or a hobby. Or cancer.
Nothing I can think of is a valid excuse for publishing bad science.
Posted by: Fia | November 15, 2009 12:35 PM
So I just got through reading all these comments, I like how it has really inspired to think about this issue from different sides. However, it does make one point clear, which is something that we should all be reminded of. As individuals we are all the center of our OWN universes. It is very hard to separate yourself from that fact that you wake up, everyday, and have to live in your own head and deal with your own needs. To me, a big part of this argument somehow reconciling your inner world ( in which the above project is a really big deal), with that of someone else (who has other things, including this project, going on).
I think there is a fair amount of hurt to learn that something that happens to be the center of your own universe, doesn't occupy the same place is someone else's. However, as many people have said here, it doesn't mean they don't care, or think it's bullshit, but that they probably just have alot of things that they are trying to balance in their own lives (work, family, etc).
Posted by: Lindsey | November 15, 2009 2:44 PM
Just for fun here's a fine example of abstract deadline slipping, plotted for your inspection:
http://sciblogs.co.nz/the-atavism/2009/11/15/herding-cats/
Posted by: Grant | November 15, 2009 5:43 PM
Okay, so I'm with everyone who has said that you absolutely, positively, never ever EVER publish work with someone else's name on it without that someone else's express permission, preferably in writing. And I feel for authorofthisletter, especially about the "OMG, API waited until she went overseas to read it and NOW she's worried about the science?"
But I also see the middle way, assuming that API can be drawn to it. If the science doesn't COMPLETELY suck, then you should tell her, in so many words, that you will do whatever it is she wants science-wise for the poster or talk. Abstracts have a way of looking fairly different from the final work.
Maybe API is worried that the grad students are wasting hot science on a regional meeting. Well, again, there are ways around that. If you bump up the sample size or toss in a few more variables, it's not the same published work. And at the meeting itself, people are usually pleased to hear that the work is in press at Science or just came out in Nature last week. It just has to be unpublished as of the time of the abstract deadline, not as of the meeting itself. Meeting organizers are just trying to prevent you traveling from Iowa to Germany to France with the same tattered poster, not trying to scoop JAMA.
Posted by: ginger | November 15, 2009 7:48 PM
Related question: What do you do as a PI when the reverse situation happens and a former student contributes to some work that is only ready to publish much later. The student in question has done enough work on the project to warrant co-authorship, but has since disappeared off the face of the Earth and can't be practically contacted (or is just completely unresponsive despite extensive efforts to make contact). How long do you let that person hold up the publication before you either a) publish it with their name but without their explicit permission, b) put them in the acknowledgements and publish without them, or c) some other possibility?
Posted by: bob | November 16, 2009 5:16 AM
I'm in exactly the same situation myself right now and as much as I don't like it, I have to say that Dr Isis is spot on.
I finished my MSc by research last year, had some good results that made pretty graphs and was hot to publish my discovery (that no one else had made yet!). However, half my sample came from a third party Mr A. Now Mr A was very kind in giving me samples I would have had a hard time obtaining myself, so I am very grateful. As far as I know he is happy for the work to be published BUT he is a very busy man with fingers in many pies. He also does not work at my uni or is affiliated with it in any way. I sent him a copy of my thesis when I graduated (last year) and then emailed him a copy of the paper I intend to puclish (a few weeks ago). I have not heard back from him. At all. So now I send weekly emails, hoping the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Now why did it take me so long to get my paper together? I had it written by the time I graduated BUT my PI was not on board with my project. It was invovling a competely different animal and she had no input in the hypothesis. So why did I end up in her lab? Cos my first PI upped and left the uni in my first year and somehow I ended up with newPI. She was very good at what she did and therefor and lots of PhDs, postdocs and MSc students to look after. She also went on many conferences, was well respected and VERY BUSY and I know I was not priority. So I had to wait 9 months for her to approve my paper for publication, all the while I'm chomping on the bit cos I'm worried another group will beat me to it.
So, all I can say is patience. It will be 2010 before I publish something that was ready to roll in 2008. Sometimes we have to put up with the cards we are dealt and do the best we can with what's in front of us.
Posted by: twinkle | November 16, 2009 8:54 AM
I 100% empathize with the students and becca's positions.
I 100% agree with Isis's position. Regional stuff is flexible and if the science is hot you WILL be WAY better off holding off, fixing the glitches, and submitting to something bigger.
Posted by: cookingwithsolvents | November 18, 2009 8:59 PM