Prevent theories from being scooped?

[garylei]

Hi folks,

I am a fresh-PhD/1st-year postdoc in engineering, and the research group is highly laboratory-oriented. We conduct a lot of laboratory experiments, from which we might have useful and publishable findings. However, in our publications, there are much more scaling laws and empirical equations than analytical solutions.

Besides experiments, I also spend enormous amount of time sorting out the math and physics. A few months ago, I had a major breakthrough that one of my analytical models worked very well. I drafted a paper, but my advisor said that it was too "dry".  Instead, she wanted me to join force with another student, whose experiments demonstrated how my model could be used to answer real-world research questions. At first, I was frustrated that my theories were about to get scooped and that one first-author publication would become a co-author publication. However, I did not do anything because I have not been academically independent yet. I need the letter of recommendation from my advisor for faculty job application, so I just let it go.

I was wondering how to prevent my theories from being scooped. I am under the impression that in our field people tend to like findings more than theories. Yet, isn't math/physics the basis of all the findings?

Thanks!
Garylei

[scamp]

In engineering, we like theories and analytical models that can be backed up with real world data, or at the very least use real world data in the model to predict behavior and show what the range of that predicted behavior will be.

When you say your one of your analytical models worked well, do you mean that the math worked out nicely or that the model matches data nicely? Nice math is gratifying, but it is still just nice math, and without showing application in your paper, it probably won't be taken up by the community - you don't have enough standing in the community yet such that you can propose models and let other people test them with their data.

Working with someone else to make your ideas better isn't getting scooped - if you incorporate their data and add them as an author, you should still be first author and be getting credit for the idea.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Without knowing the specifics it is very hard to say whether your advisor assessed the potential of your paper correctly.

One way to look at it is that a paper that has both the math (theory) and experimental evidence is most likely much more impactful than a paper only featuring one of those aspects separately.

[Kron3007]

This is not being scooped, this is working collaboratively.

Is it better to have a first authored mediocre paper or a co-authored, higher impact paper?  This is the real question.  Your advisor seems to thing a co-authored paper that is more complete will be better, and she may very well be right. 

[Ruralguy]

I'd go with co-authored if it means getting everything together (data and model) efficiently and faster.