Advisor threatening to pull his name from accepted paper that I submitted without his knowledge

Question

Recently, I submitted a research article in the journal "Applied Mathematics and Computations" and fortunately my work got accepted with a very good response from reviewers.

However, I made the mistake of submitting this paper without the knowledge of my coauthor (who is my advisor). When I told him that our paper had been accepted, he became really upset with me and warned me that he would withdraw his name from the article.

Nothing is wrong with the article except that I did not ask him before submitting it. The reason I did not ask him was because he took an unnecessarily long time (2-3 months) to edit the draft of the manuscript.

How should I convince him now?

PS. Please also see this "Query".

Unfortunately? You chose that path for some reason. That reason needs to be dealt with by you as soon as possible. Your relationship with your adviser is hanging in the balance. — Jon Custer, May 19 '16 at 01:54
RetractionWatch is full of stories of papers that were retracted for having been submitted and published without a co-author's knowledge. You really can't do things like that. — ff524, May 19 '16 at 01:58
Yes, you are really wrong for not asking your coauthor in advance whether he agrees that the paper is ready to submit. — JeffE, May 19 '16 at 02:52
Usually when you submit an article it explicitly mentions that you must have checked with all authors. — Jessica B, May 19 '16 at 06:44
I'm not sure I agree with the edit to change "Advisor" into "Coauthor". This frames the question in a rather different circumstance. In principle the same rules apply, regardless of who the coauthor is, but the perspective in the situation is rather different. — J..., May 19 '16 at 11:38
I'll just add that you really do need your advisor because without him you can't graduate. Now, whether or not you need him after that is up to you. It may be you want to stay in academia, in that case having a strong relationship with your advisor is essential. My advisor and I did not get along, and I think as a result of that it pretty much killed any interest in science I may have had (both my advisors were pretty looney, looking back with 20 years of clarity). So, kiss up to your advisor now, then figure what your next steps are. — Rob, May 19 '16 at 12:30
When you say "I did not ask him because he took an unnecessarily long time (2-3 months) to edit the draft of the manuscript." do you mean that you received his edits, then chose to submit without telling him, or that you submitted because he was taking too long, and you submitted it before he finished reviewing and editing? — Adam Davis, May 19 '16 at 14:22
@AdamDavis .... Exactly, time he take for editing is just waste as he just keep manuscript with him for 2-3 months and then suddenly edit in few days, I feel he internationally delay the process. — IgotiT, May 19 '16 at 14:39
I don't actually know much about academia, but I had the impression that authorship was more about credit than endorsement, and that it would have been just as or more unethical for him to submit without the advisor's name on it. Is there a right way to publish a paper that someone who contributed enough to the work to earn coauthorship doesn't want their name on? — Random832, May 19 '16 at 19:36
@Random832 If said contributor wishes not to be listed as an author, but gives consent for the paper to be published without his name on it, that of course is perfectly fine. (But you should best get that in writing.) If he doesn't want it to be published even without their name, then there's nothing you can (ethically) do but shelve it. — Christian Clason, May 19 '16 at 20:34
@ChristianClason But you can't legitimately claim sole authorship if you are not the sole author. It isn't clear that your coauthor can give you permission to use their work without giving them credit. — cfr, May 20 '16 at 03:15
@Random832 authorship is both credit and endorsement. If it had turned out that the OP fabricated the data, for example, the advisor would be in deep trouble until proven that he didn't know anything about it. (I am not implying the OP did anything like that, just a hypothetical). — Davidmh, May 20 '16 at 08:31
@ChristianClason Maybe it is discipline sensitive? In mine, it would certainly not be acceptable if most of the ideas for a thesis came from the advisor. — cfr, May 20 '16 at 12:13
@ChristianClason....what if all ideas are of student only and advisor is serving as administrative tools only ? — IgotiT, May 20 '16 at 12:15
@ChristianClason someone can write up a manuscript and give it to the first person they meet in the street to do at they see fit, but even with this explicit permission if that person would publish it as their own, they would be committing academic fraud and plagiarism. Permission only means that the author waives their right to object and e.g. copyright issues, but a journal can and will request an affirmation that this is your original work, and you would have to either defraud them or disclose the original author(s). It's the same as with hiring someone to write your thesis for you. — Peteris, May 20 '16 at 20:44
@Peteris Fair enough, the man on the street was a bad straw man. Nevertheless, if the coauthor explicitly relinquishes authorship but agrees with the publication without his name, this should be his right. How to do so is an interesting but different question. (I would think that at the least, this situation should be clearly explained to the editor-in-chief when submitting, together with a written permission. They would then to decide whether they would consider publishing the paper under these circumstances. This is similar to how one would treat anonymous publications.) — Christian Clason, May 20 '16 at 21:34
@ChristianClason coauthor's permission would be completely sufficient to publish the paper without the coauthor's name in almost all non-academic places - you can print a book ('ghost writers' are common enough), put it on your website, etc. However, almost all respected academic venues for publication will have policies that they won't allow that - they'll state that the author list must include all appropriate researchers, period; instead of something conditional on their wishes or permissions. For example, http://www.nature.com/authors/policies/authorship.html — Peteris, May 20 '16 at 21:50
@Peteris As I said, it depends on the journal. An alternative to leaving the coauthor completely off the paper is to make them anonymous. There's precedent to this (and a few questions about it on this site, if I recall correctly). (Although in this specific situation, I agree that few editors would touch that manuscript with a ten-foot pole.) But we're getting off-topic here. (Moderators: Feel free to clean up my comments here.) — Christian Clason, May 20 '16 at 21:58
@ChristianClason As I say, I think that must be discipline specific. It would not be acceptable in mine. — cfr, May 20 '16 at 22:39
So, after the adviser edited the manuscript, did you further edit it before having it published, or was it published exactly as the adviser edited it? Assuming the latter, it seems to me that if mutually, your intent was to have the paper published when it was ready, the paper as they had edited it, and your agreement with the adviser's editing, would indicate it was in fact ready. But, to be clear, you should have discussed this with them ahead of time... but that ship has sailed. Now, you must apologize and try to repair your relationship with them. — Kevin Fegan, May 21 '16 at 03:13
@IgotiT If this (advisor is only "administrative tool") is indeed the case, he should not be listed as an author at all -- but this is often not an easy call; see the many questions about this on this site. — Christian Clason, May 21 '16 at 18:00
Ethically, it isn't great form if the coauthor does not want to be listed and you publish without their name even with their permission if they had significant contribution. It is essentially inferring the work is your own. I would not be comfortable making that claim. Best solution in this scenario imho is for finding common ground to publish with permission and have the coauthor on the paper. — Shiv, May 22 '16 at 22:51
@Peteris There is now a separate question on this aspect: http://academia.stackexchange.com/q/19454 — Christian Clason, May 27 '16 at 00:41

score 154 · Accepted Answer · edited May 20 '16 at 10:55

154

You are wrong for putting the name of someone on a paper and submitting it without asking them for permission. Having them as an author communicates to the world that they approved the content and agree with the conclusions. Implicit in that is that they signed off on the manuscript. Some people get angry when this happens even if the paper is fine and they agree with the conclusions. Some don't. This happened to me recently, and even though I didn't agree with the recommendations of the paper, they weren't wrong, scientifically, so I decided to let it go.

You need to figure out a way to smooth this over with your advisor and to work with them to get edits turned around more quickly. That being said, don't lead the discussion by bringing up the turnaround time issue. That's combative.

edited May 20 '16 at 10:55

Insane

105
5

answered May 19 '16 at 01:36

Bill Barth

48,733
6
112
194

46

Someone could certainly be upset about an article being submitted, even if they are happy with the content, because they do not agree with the choice of journal. Especially when it's an Elsevier journal. – Jessica B May 19 '16 at 06:46
3

@JessicaB: What's wrong with Elsevier? (Yeah I really have no idea.) – user541686 May 19 '16 at 08:24
24

@Mehrdad Their business model, in short. Quite a lot of mathematicians have chosen to boycott them. – Jessica B May 19 '16 at 08:46
9

All good, except note that OP did ask the professor to review it; they just didn't get the thumbs up before submitting. Doesn't make it right, but consider editing your first sentence. – user1717828 May 19 '16 at 12:56
1

@user1717828, "I did not ask him because he took an unnecessarily long time (2-3 months) to edit the draft of the manuscript." It's literally the last major sentence of the post besides the final question. – Bill Barth May 19 '16 at 13:01
8

@BillBarth, I must be interpreting that sentence different than you are: OP asked the professor to review the paper (i.e., edit the draft of the manuscript). OP did not ask about the final submission when he got tired of waiting for it to come back. – user1717828 May 19 '16 at 13:11
9

If you're worried about time sensitivity (though in this case the OP screwed up badly, so this is a "future lesson"), you can always say, "If I don't hear back from you by the Umpteeth of Decemberween, I'll assume that you've reviewed the paper and are OK with me submitting it." That's a great way to deal with procrastinators/busy people. If they really care, they'll respond to you immediately, but chances are they don't, and you've given them a fair chance. Though for something like a research paper, I'd probably also send them a second reminder. – Wayne Werner May 19 '16 at 13:34
1

@user1717828, I can see your interpretation, too. Either way, it's no real excuse. – Bill Barth May 19 '16 at 20:58
4

@WayneWerner I don't agree that giving a deadline allows you to presume consent if you don't get a response. I think you need to be able to assert that the coauthor has given consent positively. – cfr May 20 '16 at 03:10
3

@cfr that may be the case for papers, but still, how hard is it to reply and say, "Let me review the paper and get back to you"? If you wanted positive consent, then the text of your "final warning" email could be something to the effect of, "I haven't heard anything from you, so I assume you've reviewed the paper or you trust that it's correct. I'll be submitting it to X in a week, but I'd like to have confirmation. Simply respond to this email with 'Yes, submit it!', 'No, I do not want to be an author on this paper', or 'Let's meet and go over it first'." – Wayne Werner May 20 '16 at 12:56
If you give the meet option, also make sure to provide three possible meeting times (or just meet during their office hours). – Wayne Werner May 20 '16 at 13:00
+1 for avoiding the turn-around issue. That's pretty much a fact of life in academia, where many of us are moving from one deadline to the next. @WayneWerner gives good advice on this point, though the really awkward point is when you get a continued lack of response. At that point I think the only thing you can do is remove them as an author, perhaps acknowledging them as mentioned in http://academia.stackexchange.com/a/69018/22582 but remembering to inform them ahead of doing so. – beldaz May 24 '16 at 00:12

Christian Clason · Answer 2 · 2016-05-19T11:58:00.707

106

To complement Bill Barth's answer, here's some concrete tips on how to move ahead in this case:

First, you need to come to terms with the fact that a very likely outcome is that you do in fact have to retract the paper -- your primary objective here should be to get back on good terms with your advisor, not to publish the paper, because the former is much, much more important for your career in the long run. (If he relents in the end, that's a bonus.)
Second, what you need to convince him of is that you fully understand how utterly and inexcusably wrong your action was -- no ifs and buts. He needs to be certain that in your (hopefully) long career to come, you will never, ever, do such a thing again.
Offer to do anything he feels necessary, up to and including writing a very apologetic letter to the editor-in-chief explaining your mistake and requesting to withdraw the paper. No arguing.
Then, you can try to (carefully) find out if there is any additional reason why he reacted so strongly in this particular case (beyond justly being upset over your scientific misconduct). Does he disapprove of the choice of journal? Does he think the paper is not good enough to be submitted (yet)? All of the above? This way, you might get some constructive feedback out of this mess.
(If your advisor is not the only coauthor, repeat the above steps for the remaining coauthors -- the earlier, the better.)

edited May 19 '16 at 11:58

answered May 19 '16 at 07:21

Christian Clason

5,135
1
30
51

25

"Ask him if there is any particular reason why he reacted so strongly"... uh, this seems like awful advice. He reacted strongly because he was portrayed as endorsing something he was unaware of. Is that not sufficient reason? Either reword this or remove it, because the way it's worded right now, it might even be more infuriating than the original thing, considering it's stated after the OP supposedly understood what he did wrong. – user541686 May 19 '16 at 08:26
1

@Mehrdad I think what was meant is that, after dealing with the immediate problem, the OP might try to establish what might be the future of the paper. – Jessica B May 19 '16 at 08:49
11

@Mehrdad Of course it is sufficient reason; but there might be additional reasons in this specific case which could be helpful to know explicitly. (Also, as Bill Barth points out, not everyone gets angry for not being asked, so it is conceivable that there is in fact something specific to this paper.) – Christian Clason May 19 '16 at 08:55
32

+1 The immediate and unqualified apology, no ifs and buts, is central here. Don't even try to justify what you did. Ask what you can do to fix it. – Captain Emacs May 19 '16 at 11:40
Just curious (as a longtime lurker) as to why an advisor is that important? Is an advisor like a longerm "boss"? Say this individual gets his paper published with no retraction -- is his advisor still a more important "resume item" than his published / proven work? – HC_ May 19 '16 at 19:21
7

@HC_ More like a longterm "friend" (ideally, without the quotes). To put it briefly, one lost paper is easy to remedy by writing another paper; your advisor's bad opinion of you as a potential member of the scientific community (which will get around) is much harder to make up for. One way of looking at it is that essentially you have two resumes: The objective one on paper, and the subjective one made up of your peers' collective opinion of you -- and the latter can be just as important for your career (if not moreso), in particular later on when the first one becomes too long to evaluate – Christian Clason May 19 '16 at 20:26
7

(cont'd): Even in the short term: The first thing I (and probably most of my colleagues) do when considering an application is to call up the advisor and ask for his personal opinion on the candidate with respect to what topics I had in mind. If said advisor then mentioned any scientific misconduct, that would be a huge red flag unless the lesson was clearly and permanently learned. – Christian Clason May 19 '16 at 20:30
@HC_ You are asking a new question. It does not belong in the comments to this answer. – Colin McLarty May 20 '16 at 11:15

score -7 · Answer 3 · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:49

This basically is the counterpart of the question:

Is it ethical for advisors to automatically coauthor papers?

In fact, the same ethical standards apply here. Authorship is only justified by a significant contribution to the actual work. The supervisor role by no means automatically qualifies for that – in neither direction.

The following is – again – from the "DFG Proposals for Safeguarding Good Scientific Practice" (pp.82f, emphasis added):

Authors of an original scientific publication shall be all those, and only those, who have made significant contributions to the conception of studies or experiments, to the generation, analysis and interpretation of the data, and to preparing the manuscript, and who have consented to its publication, thereby assuming responsibility for it. [...]

So putting his name on a paper he did not consented to is actually a case of scientific misconduct.

However, if we assume that your supvervisor has high ethical standards, the situation is even worse: The unfortunate, but way more common system of misconduct is that professors insist on "automatic coauthorship" on their students papers (which, in some cases, they do not even read). By automatically putting his name on the paper, you leave the impression that he is a supporter of this unethical practice!

If you want to thank somebody or underline their great support, you can safely do so in the Acknowledgements section of the paper.

Why do you assume that the co-author did not contribute to the paper? Nowhere does it say that he is a co-author only because he is the advisor. (And of course readers of the paper have no reason to assume he is an "automatic" co-author and did not contribute, so I don't see how By automatically putting his name on the paper, you leave the impression that he is a supporter of this unethical practice! makes sense at all.) — ff524, May 20 '16 at 11:52
+1 for referencing some actual guidelines. No idea why this answer is getting hammered. — beldaz, May 24 '16 at 00:08
@ff524: Apparently I misunderstood this, sorry about that. However, my general message still holds, so I wonder if that is the (only) reason for the surprisingly high number of downvotes? I am a bit puzzled... — Daniel, May 30 '16 at 12:40

Advisor threatening to pull his name from accepted paper that I submitted without his knowledge

3 Answers3

Linked