How much time should a coauthor be allowed for reviewing a manuscript before it is submitted? How long is too long? At what point do you feel it is appropriate to start complaining? Or making ultimatums?
What if that coauthor is your advisor?
What if that coauthor is your student?
Personally, I think things are going pretty well if all coauthors respond to a request for feedback within a month. Gentle reminders are appropriate beginning about three weeks after the coauthors receive the manuscript, and can increase in frequency and sternness of tone after that. I think three months is too long, unless there are extenuating circumstances, and is the point at which serious complaining may start. I can't imagine making an ultimatum to an advisor or coauthor who made a major contribution, but I can imagine engaging in hard-core whining.
Am I off base?
In other news, we successfully added a second computer to our wireless network with absolutely no drama. The new router is teh awesome.
9 comments:
Your timeline and approach is similar to mine. Unfortunately, the last PI I worked for routinely took more than a month to read a manuscript, and there's only too much harassing, um, gentle nudging, that can be done to a Big Boss. HOWEVER, if it was a high-priority manuscript with a shot at a GlamorMag, he would be all over that manuscript IMMEDIATELY. So, uh, scientists in the lab pretty much knew where their projects stood in his eyes.
I wish reminders or even complaining would work. Not much luck so far with most of my current coauthors, including my advisor/boss (I've been waiting for over 2 months).
I wish the author lists of our manuscripts were REALLY based on active contribution to the end product, so I could kick out the ones that don't do their part. Let's just hope that the paper will eventually get published.
I generally set a deadline for coauthors when I send out a manuscript, and ask them to let me know if the deadline won't work for them at the outset. This generally has worked pretty well, as I've never really had to work too hard to keep collaborators on task.
With my mentor, I have no problem with whining or complaining if he's kept me waiting too long (not unusual). I also resort to other methods, like "respectful" hints to other people he interacts with ("I know how busy he is and how easy it is for this to get pushed back...but I want to make sure I'm able to publish this paper so I can find a job and he can hire a shiny new postdoc..."). But my favorite is this past email to my mentor "I assume the manuscript looks good since I haven't heard anything...I'll be submitting it later today" - immediate attention was granted.
Of course, while these methods work well for me and my mentor, I can't guarantee success or happy endings for others.
Sigh.
No joke. No exaggeration... I have waited almost a year for my coauthor to finish a manuscript....... happens to be my advisor so I can't go around him...
He routinely takes 8-9 months. With weekly nagging from me.
I have finally got all "go aheads" I needed on something that was given out in its "final" form in November, after using the "my due date is here!" as a last resort last month. So don't get me started.
Dr. O's idea sounds brilliant!
With my first paper, I waited 6 months for comments from my coauthor = advisor. With him it seems to depend on how much work he (thinks he) needs to do on it -- if it's almost finished it'll be fast, if not... (of course the Glamour Factor plays a role as well)
I agree w/Dr. O. I always liked to give a , please get comments back in X weeks. Then you don't feel like nagging once x weeks and a few days passes.
With my adviser I had to nag, which I felt bad about, but he affirmed that the squeaky wheel, ect.
I've also head of other stating, "I will be submitting this manuscript on this date, please return comments by another date if you'd like them to be considered in the manuscript. Additionally, please feel free to tell me if you'd like to stay as coauthor on this paper."
It sounds like a constant struggle for everyone. Good luck figuring out something that works.
Some times you just have to give up. I wrote a paper in 2004. About every 18 months my advisor has looked at it and said it was out of date and that I needed to update it. I left research in 2007, and spent many evenings in the lab "finishing" things for her (on a multitude of projects). I have not heard back about the 2004 paper (or the three subsequent) in the last two years, nor does she answer e-mails. I tried all the usual threats.
Wow, it sucks that we all have this sort of problem!
For the record, I hadn't been waiting for something when I posted this. I was mostly curious about what other people consider "timely".
Post a Comment