crazietalk.net

DukePA wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:I received the final draft of the manuscript today, and I found out why I was excluded from last week's meetings. My boss let them do something that basically invalidated all the statistical analysis that I did. Once my boss finally put in an appearance, I went into his office and told him I wanted my name removed from the manuscript. Amazingly, this time he agreed with no discussion. I then sent an e-mail to him, Pushy PI, and The Minion which said, "After much thought and careful consideration, I respectfully request that my name be removed from the list of coauthors." After that, I wrote my boss a message that outlined the reasons that I wanted my name removed. All 8 of them included either outright falsification or misrepresentation of the data. Notably absent from my list: the decision they made last week that invalidated my work. I then made an appointment to chat with someone at the Academic Integrity office and have just returned home from that meeting. What I have learned is this: we're really in a holding pattern until they submit the manuscript that includes the fraudulent statements. As it currently stands, there are a few statements that are outright lies, but most of the others are worded in such a way that they are subject to interpretation. Those are harder to prove. It's also a good thing that I've started putting everything in writing. Relevant documents that I currently have: draft with my comments that were ignored, current draft, and message to my boss that lists the problems I have with the manuscript. I'll have to dig through my e-mail messages to see what other items I might need to include.

A humorous note: one of my concerns is the manner in which the dealt with The Minion's analysis mistake. They chose to completely omit all description of what she did. Instead, they refer to a figure in the supplemental data. The figure says what she should've done rather than what she actually did.

Dayummmm. That being said, AD, you're my Sheroe! You rock and I am so proud to call you my friend. Way to stand up with integrity, honesty and dignity. Very well done! You must celebrate! Go DUKE! GTHC!

ArkieDukie wrote:I received the final draft of the manuscript today, and I found out why I was excluded from last week's meetings. My boss let them do something that basically invalidated all the statistical analysis that I did. Once my boss finally put in an appearance, I went into his office and told him I wanted my name removed from the manuscript. Amazingly, this time he agreed with no discussion. I then sent an e-mail to him, Pushy PI, and The Minion which said, "After much thought and careful consideration, I respectfully request that my name be removed from the list of coauthors." After that, I wrote my boss a message that outlined the reasons that I wanted my name removed. All 8 of them included either outright falsification or misrepresentation of the data. Notably absent from my list: the decision they made last week that invalidated my work. I then made an appointment to chat with someone at the Academic Integrity office and have just returned home from that meeting. What I have learned is this: we're really in a holding pattern until they submit the manuscript that includes the fraudulent statements. As it currently stands, there are a few statements that are outright lies, but most of the others are worded in such a way that they are subject to interpretation. Those are harder to prove. It's also a good thing that I've started putting everything in writing. Relevant documents that I currently have: draft with my comments that were ignored, current draft, and message to my boss that lists the problems I have with the manuscript. I'll have to dig through my e-mail messages to see what other items I might need to include.

A humorous note: one of my concerns is the manner in which the dealt with The Minion's analysis mistake. They chose to completely omit all description of what she did. Instead, they refer to a figure in the supplemental data. The figure says what she should've done rather than what she actually did.

ArkieDukie wrote:

DukePA wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:I received the final draft of the manuscript today, and I found out why I was excluded from last week's meetings. My boss let them do something that basically invalidated all the statistical analysis that I did. Once my boss finally put in an appearance, I went into his office and told him I wanted my name removed from the manuscript. Amazingly, this time he agreed with no discussion. I then sent an e-mail to him, Pushy PI, and The Minion which said, "After much thought and careful consideration, I respectfully request that my name be removed from the list of coauthors." After that, I wrote my boss a message that outlined the reasons that I wanted my name removed. All 8 of them included either outright falsification or misrepresentation of the data. Notably absent from my list: the decision they made last week that invalidated my work. I then made an appointment to chat with someone at the Academic Integrity office and have just returned home from that meeting. What I have learned is this: we're really in a holding pattern until they submit the manuscript that includes the fraudulent statements. As it currently stands, there are a few statements that are outright lies, but most of the others are worded in such a way that they are subject to interpretation. Those are harder to prove. It's also a good thing that I've started putting everything in writing. Relevant documents that I currently have: draft with my comments that were ignored, current draft, and message to my boss that lists the problems I have with the manuscript. I'll have to dig through my e-mail messages to see what other items I might need to include.

A humorous note: one of my concerns is the manner in which the dealt with The Minion's analysis mistake. They chose to completely omit all description of what she did. Instead, they refer to a figure in the supplemental data. The figure says what she should've done rather than what she actually did.

Dayummmm. That being said, AD, you're my Sheroe! You rock and I am so proud to call you my friend. Way to stand up with integrity, honesty and dignity. Very well done! You must celebrate! Go DUKE! GTHC!

Thanks, DPA. To say that this was not an easy decision is an understatement of epic proportions. Too bad my boss wouldn't listen to me over 2 months ago when I first asked to have my name removed from the manuscript. At least it's off now, and if they get called on falsification it's on my boss's head rather than mine.

windsor wrote:You go girl!

If you haven't already please make sure you forward all releveant documents offsite somewhere lest there be a tragic error in your e-mail account that causes history to be lost...

Ima Facultiwyfe wrote:Since you've called a spade a spade, have you been less or more comfortable around the office? How many co-workers are aware of what has gone down? Any supporters?
Love, Ima

CathyCA wrote:And now you will have a very good story to tell in an interview when the interviewer asks, "Tell me about how you have handled conflicts at work."

I would be very brief and not name names in the retelling. . .

This must make you feel very good, AD. I hope that a new job offer comes along with more money and better scenery!

ArkieDukie wrote:

CathyCA wrote:And now you will have a very good story to tell in an interview when the interviewer asks, "Tell me about how you have handled conflicts at work."

I would be very brief and not name names in the retelling. . .

This must make you feel very good, AD. I hope that a new job offer comes along with more money and better scenery!

Thanks, Cathy. I hadn't thought about using this anecdote in a job interview, but I guess I could.

I might also think of a way to use this as a reason for leaving my job. Aside from my boss asking me to look for a new job (which some people think he didn't mean), I can honestly say that I had some major philosophical problems with things that happened in the lab. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one can pay me enough to lie or to falsify data.

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:

CathyCA wrote:And now you will have a very good story to tell in an interview when the interviewer asks, "Tell me about how you have handled conflicts at work."

I would be very brief and not name names in the retelling. . .

This must make you feel very good, AD. I hope that a new job offer comes along with more money and better scenery!

Thanks, Cathy. I hadn't thought about using this anecdote in a job interview, but I guess I could.

I might also think of a way to use this as a reason for leaving my job. Aside from my boss asking me to look for a new job (which some people think he didn't mean), I can honestly say that I had some major philosophical problems with things that happened in the lab. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no one can pay me enough to lie or to falsify data.

You need to have a tactful way of saying that you couldn't work where sloppy lab work (research) and sloppier record keeping/calculations were encouraged and published for the sake of getting the results you wanted to get (or were paid to get). Obviously the way I just said it is NOT the way to say it, or you'll never get a job!

wilson wrote:

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:You need to have a tactful way of saying that you couldn't work where sloppy lab work (research) and sloppier record keeping/calculations were encouraged and published for the sake of getting the results you wanted to get (or were paid to get). Obviously the way I just said it is NOT the way to say it, or you'll never get a job!

I think you should definitely think of a way to tactfully include this saga in your next job interview. Just yesterday, I was asked about my experiences at Emory, and I had to think of how to tactfully but openly tell how things went down for me there. I ended up just being forthright, even briefly mentioning the emotional and existential struggles that resulted from my episode(s) there. Toward the end of the interview, the principal told me that he liked my honesty and what it said about my philosophy on education.
Just my 2 cents...above all, Arkie, I'm glad that you're achieving further clarity and confidence that you're doing the right thing (I certainly think you've made a series of very good, albeit tough decisions).

ArkieDukie wrote:

wilson wrote:

OZZIE4DUKE wrote:You need to have a tactful way of saying that you couldn't work where sloppy lab work (research) and sloppier record keeping/calculations were encouraged and published for the sake of getting the results you wanted to get (or were paid to get). Obviously the way I just said it is NOT the way to say it, or you'll never get a job!

I think you should definitely think of a way to tactfully include this saga in your next job interview. Just yesterday, I was asked about my experiences at Emory, and I had to think of how to tactfully but openly tell how things went down for me there. I ended up just being forthright, even briefly mentioning the emotional and existential struggles that resulted from my episode(s) there. Toward the end of the interview, the principal told me that he liked my honesty and what it said about my philosophy on education.
Just my 2 cents...above all, Arkie, I'm glad that you're achieving further clarity and confidence that you're doing the right thing (I certainly think you've made a series of very good, albeit tough decisions).

Thanks for the tip, wilson, and also for the anecdote about your recent experiences. A part of me thinks that someone who views my attitude about data falsification as a negative trait is likely someone I would not want to work for. It's good to know that honesty worked in your favor in your recent interview. Sending vibes that you get good news from them soon.