Frustrating co-author

[mathofsorts]

I am looking for advice about a problem paper. This is a joint paper between myself, a tenured colleague and a post-doc. The main issue is that my colleague and I have a definite disagreement about one scientific interpretation of the overall paper. I am not at all certain why this disagreement only appeared when we were about to submit the paper -- the colleague said that he was 'throwing me a bone' but was unwilling to go along with it anymore and wants changes that I think are incorrect.

Now he has gone completely silent and won't reply to emails. He is also in the process of moving to a different institution (already physically moved but doesn't start until Fall). The postdoc is wary about asking him to remove his name so we can submit it, since they are just starting their career and don't want to have an 'enemy' of sorts. The postdoc and I have sent the paper to two different people for informal review -- one with some heads-up about the disagreement and one without. Both people think that the colleague is very wrong -- not just a little wrong but quite wrong.

I am not sure how to handle this. The paper is a good one and I think it should review well. I am just a bit at a loss as to where to push to move things along.

[Ruralguy]

You can just submit it on your own, but if it really is joint work, then you have to come to some sort of compromise. If that's not possible, just submit it the way he wants and wait for others to comment.  Obviously you can just withdraw from it yourself and somehow create a paper of only your work, then never collaborate with this person again.

[Puget]

If that's not possible, just submit it the way he wants and wait for others to comment.

If you are really convinced that he is very wrong, I would definitely NOT do this-- it could hurt your own reputation, and most critically, that of the postdoc. At most, I might mention it as an "alternative interpretation" in the discussion section-- that's the sort of thing that often happens in response to reviewers anyway.

This is a difficult situation if it was really joint work (and not just a paper you added him to for throwing some ideas around with you). It seems like the three of you really need to meet and hear each other out, which unfortunately may have wait till he's completed his move. Have you shared the informal reviewers' comments with him? Hearing their logic might sway him if he's at all reasonable.

Good luck!

[mathofsorts]

It was joint work for sure. It is a bummer since I actually learned a lot from the colleagues contribution -- it was mainly my project but the specific spin was not the way I had approached it. In a perfect world we could discuss the difference of opinion -- I have boiled it down to a pretty simple example. But I can't get any engagement... and the last round (about 2 months ago) was one of the most inappropriate emails I have received. Not really actionable but amazingly condescending and rude.

One idea I had was to carve up the results and include them in separate papers. The postdoc and I have a great relationship and are currently writing a grant proposal that is more on the applied side following versions of this that are more in my area.

I sort of am at the end of my patience and have also suggested sending an 'if we don't hear from you by next week, we will assume you are not interested in working through this and will submit it on our own'... But that is a definite bridge burner.

[Ruralguy]

Don't share the informal reviewers comments. That will, justifiably I think, look like you were trying on purpose to torpedo him.

I agree that the best path is to discuss it and move on to other things while working it out. As for just gong with what he wanted, I was simply laying out all of the options. If the OP is wrong, then this might actually be intelligent and expedient. Of course if the OP is right, as Puget says, it could be damaging to just go along with an incorrect/erroneous interpretation.

[Ruralguy]

On reading OP's second post....just split it up as best you can and move on. Sometimes you just have to burn the bridge if you don't want the attacking forces to get to you.

[tiva]

I sort of am at the end of my patience and have also suggested sending an 'if we don't hear from you by next week, we will assume you are not interested in working through this and will submit it on our own'... But that is a definite bridge burner.

I was going to suggest a variation on this: 'if we don't hear from you by Friday at 5 pm eastern time, we will assume you are happy with this draft and we'll submit it'.  And then turn in the draft that you think is correct, not the version he prefers. But be as specific about the time of the deadline as you can.

[fizzycist]

If that's not possible, just submit it the way he wants and wait for others to comment.

If you are really convinced that he is very wrong, I would definitely NOT do this-- it could hurt your own reputation, and most critically, that of the postdoc. At most, I might mention it as an "alternative interpretation" in the discussion section-- that's the sort of thing that often happens in response to reviewers anyway.

This is a difficult situation if it was really joint work (and not just a paper you added him to for throwing some ideas around with you). It seems like the three of you really need to meet and hear each other out, which unfortunately may have wait till he's completed his move. Have you shared the informal reviewers' comments with him? Hearing their logic might sway him if he's at all reasonable.

Good luck!

This is the way I handled an interpretation dispute in the past and everyone walked away ok with it. But the "alternative interpretation" section was just a paragraph buried in the later sections of the paper.

I've even read some papers where the authors who believed in one thing or the other were identified directly in the text, but I would only do that if the other person insisted.

A more ideal solution would be to agree to let a mutually respected colleague arbitrate (with an understanding that a possible outcome is you agree to write in the alternative interpretation). But if your co-author is unresponsive then obv this wont work.

Dropping the co-author, without them initially volunteering, is a last-resort option that I would not pursue unless the co-author is unresponsive for a very long time.

[ab_grp]

I'd be careful too about dropping your co-author if he contributed substantively to what you wish to publish, as that could violate journal and professional ethics.  In addition, he may then decide to submit a commentary that would be more adversarial than any compromise you might agree to prior to publishing.  I have not seen the "other interpretation" approach, but a colleague and I submitted a paper to a journal at the same time as another research studying the same topic using a different method.  We drew largely the same conclusions, but there were differences.  We were each invited to comment on each other's papers, and both papers, the commentaries, and a comment from the editor were published together.  Could that or similar be an option? If he absolutely will not respond to you, I'm really not sure of the best approach, and it's a really unfortunate situation, especially given that you say you've learned from the colleague's contribution and found value in it overall.

[pigou]

Do you have a sense for why your co-author is insisting on having that interpretation in the paper?

[mathofsorts]

Do you have a sense for why your co-author is insisting on having that interpretation in the paper?

I think he believes he is correct.

I very much like the alternative description idea. I also agree with everyone that dropping the colleague is by far not my favorite idea. But the postdoc is young and it is a good paper so I am not excited about dragging it out given the acrimony anyway.

[att_mtt]

I would try a different mode of reaching the co-author than email - some of my collaborators will only answer when I call them for example.
I would try calling and then get a follow up in email after discussing the matter.
It might also be an option to add a paragraph into the manuscript where the issue is debated.

[jerseyjay]

How long has it been since you last had communication? It is summer time, he is moving, and we are in the middle of a major pandemic.  I can think of several possibilities combining these, from the mundane (he's on vacation) to the tragic (he's in the ICU with Covid). If he has moved, it is possible he is in the middle of setting things up, or his email service has been changed. I would definitely try another way of contacting him, and also be extra patient. It is also possible he is taking his time to respond so he can think about the issues and how to proceed.

In terms of your situation, I am not a scientist so I am not sure what the norms are. Is the question in dispute central to the paper itself? Or is it something that can be noted and then skipped over

If it is central to the paper itself, and how you stand on the issue determines how the paper will be written, it would seem to me (as a non-scientist) that you have several options. If you get the (former) co-author's permission, can you and your other co-author make the paper say what you want it to say, submit it with your names, and have a note explaining the former co-author's role? Of course, he might want to do the same, except with his views. Is it possible to have him as a co-author, but with a note explaining the work he's done but noting he does not agree with the conclusion?

I have to say this is one of those reasons I am happy I don't have to do co-authored papers (in history). But surely somebody else must have had a similar situation?

[mathofsorts]

This deteriorated quite rapidly!

I sent an email asking if he would like to discuss how to proceed. He said he was not willing to make an alterations and since he did xy and z he felt like he had saved the team (did not really say what that meant in terms of moving forward...). He then accused me of torpedoing the tenure case of someone junior and some other pretty awful stuff.

I finally reached out in private to my chair -- in part because I am vaguely concerned he will try and cause me trouble and found out that he has had these sorts of interactions with several people.

I discussed things with the post-doc and we figured out a way to cut the paper up so that the colleagues contribution is relatively isolated and I can make some adjustments on my end and submit that apart from the other pieces. It will make several shorter papers, but untangle this. If he declines I think we will just move ahead and offer him the chance to leave his name or remove it.



This is the worst interaction that I have had -- the most vitriolic and the first involving a junior researcher which makes me very sad. For the most part I have loved all my collaborations and learned things and felt very good afterwards. This is how I discuss collaborations with my students -- as mostly rewarding with people doing the parts that they are best at. Now I am just really bummed. And a bit angry at the accusations.

Ah well.

[ab_grp]

I'm really sorry to hear that the situation has gone further down a bad path.  It seems to me from what you've written that you have done your due diligence, tried to compromise, and tried to include your frustrating co-author in the process.  It's especially dismaying to hear that he has been causing trouble or could cause further trouble and that he has made accusations like this about you.  I hope that your chair expressed support for you and that disentangling the components of the paper and creating separate papers works out.