crazietalk.net

I had a chat with my boss this morning. The answer I got was that my name has to be on the paper because the PI pays 20% of my salary. I tried the "I didn't do the data analysis" argument; the response was that they pay 20% of my salary for my expert opinion. I then pointed out as diplomatically as possible that I'm blown off any time I raise concerns about interpretation. The one thing I didn't say is that the boss has actually sided against me in these arguments on multiple occasions. The final upshot is that I have to go through all the data that she's reporting in the paper and that we'll meet with the person doing the analysis (without her boss) and go through it all. That's all well and good, assuming it actually works. I have my doubts. I've been thrown under the bus in too many meetings with this particular PI to believe that it won't be the case here as well. I'd love to be proven wrong. In any case, I'll either feel better about what's in the paper or the boss and I will be having this same conversation again. One funny note: idiot PI got my name wrong in the draft of the manuscript. I have lost count of the number of times I've told these people that I use my middle initial in my name when I publish; they omitted it. This may sound minor, but if you go to PubMed and do an author search using my first and middle initials this paper wouldn't show up. I know this because I have another paper from a previous job where this happened. Now ask me if I've corrected it in the current manuscript.

ArkieDukie wrote:I like the Ted Drewe's Terra Mizzou option. Unfortunately they lost part of their roof in the storm that blew through town a couple of nights ago.

I think if I go to any sort of institutional board it will cause more problems than it will fix. Lowly senior scientist << dept chair. They'll know who reported them.

OH NO!!!!!!!!!!! When will they repair the roof?

I understood and appreciate your comment about IRB, but you really should review the policies, so that you re-familiarize all the possibilities. As a general rule, I think everyone should review the policies more often.

I agree completely with DukePA's most recent comment.

In the meantime, vibes back at you:

ArkieDukie wrote:I had a chat with my boss this morning. The answer I got was that my name has to be on the paper because the PI pays 20% of my salary. I tried the "I didn't do the data analysis" argument; the response was that they pay 20% of my salary for my expert opinion. I then pointed out as diplomatically as possible that I'm blown off any time I raise concerns about interpretation. The one thing I didn't say is that the boss has actually sided against me in these arguments on multiple occasions. The final upshot is that I have to go through all the data that she's reporting in the paper and that we'll meet with the person doing the analysis (without her boss) and go through it all. That's all well and good, assuming it actually works. I have my doubts. I've been thrown under the bus in too many meetings with this particular PI to believe that it won't be the case here as well. I'd love to be proven wrong. In any case, I'll either feel better about what's in the paper or the boss and I will be having this same conversation again. One funny note: idiot PI got my name wrong in the draft of the manuscript. I have lost count of the number of times I've told these people that I use my middle initial in my name when I publish; they omitted it. This may sound minor, but if you go to PubMed and do an author search using my first and middle initials this paper wouldn't show up. I know this because I have another paper from a previous job where this happened. Now ask me if I've corrected it in the current manuscript.

Believe me, this is an interesting and way way way too familiar situation you are in. I feel ya pain, I do!
You see, I worked at Duke for 6 years. In clinical trials. I was one of a team of 12 data collectors on various clinical trials. We collected the data, analyzed it the first round then it went to the doctors and powers that be for their final interpretation before it being presented to the public.
And it never fails, they (the docs and powers) will always interpret their stuff to the best possible light (bending the truth and reality too) to make their study (and them) look very good.
There was one study where the premise was to prove the drug was superior to another. Fine, no problem. Until at the end it was discovered it was not better than the drug and in a few indications, it was worse.
The final analyst: The drug was a "not inferior, but a safe alternate to drug xxx". What a farce! Yet the docs and powers once again came out smelling like a rose and we data minions were just left once again smarting.

So to you I say.... it is what it is. It happened before and from what you wrote, yet another similar scenario will be playing out once again. All you can really do is to do your job, express your concern and move forward. Moving forward can mean with the job or finding something else. With the current job prospects out there, it is a crazy gamble. Do ya feel lucky?
How do you get uncredited from a piece of shi... er ummm work that you do not wish to be associated with due to the "creative" interpretation? Sounds like you are between the 'ol rock and hard place.
What's it really worth to ya to "grin and bear it" or bend over and take it up the tailpipe versus speak your mind and follow it with action? Whatever you decide, whatever creative or imaginative things you come up with the deal or not deal with this.... we are behind ya!!!!!!!

PS, after about 6 studies over the course of 6 years, I was mentally exhausted and left Duke. Scary move, smooth transition into a temp job that lasted two months, unemployment for 3 months and now in a job for 2 years that has serious ups and downs.
My point? I should have quit Duke sooner (transfers out of the dept was not an option). But I made the situation my own, did my thing and voila. I sleep much better at night now!

AD, it might make you feel better to document everything in a letter. Mail it to YOURSELF, certified mail, return receipt requested, so that you'll have proof later on down the road, should anyone ever question you about the paper, of your real-time opinion of the matter.

It will cost you less than $6.00 to do this, and you'll be able to show people "See, I tried to tell them."

ArkieDukie wrote:I had a chat with my boss this morning. The answer I got was that my name has to be on the paper because the PI pays 20% of my salary. I tried the "I didn't do the data analysis" argument; the response was that they pay 20% of my salary for my expert opinion. I then pointed out as diplomatically as possible that I'm blown off any time I raise concerns about interpretation. The one thing I didn't say is that the boss has actually sided against me in these arguments on multiple occasions. The final upshot is that I have to go through all the data that she's reporting in the paper and that we'll meet with the person doing the analysis (without her boss) and go through it all. That's all well and good, assuming it actually works. I have my doubts. I've been thrown under the bus in too many meetings with this particular PI to believe that it won't be the case here as well. I'd love to be proven wrong. In any case, I'll either feel better about what's in the paper or the boss and I will be having this same conversation again. One funny note: idiot PI got my name wrong in the draft of the manuscript. I have lost count of the number of times I've told these people that I use my middle initial in my name when I publish; they omitted it. This may sound minor, but if you go to PubMed and do an author search using my first and middle initials this paper wouldn't show up. I know this because I have another paper from a previous job where this happened. Now ask me if I've corrected it in the current manuscript.

Can you "correct" your name to reflect, say Supervisor Barbie's?

CathyCA wrote:AD, it might make you feel better to document everything in a letter. Mail it to YOURSELF, certified mail, return receipt requested, so that you'll have proof later on down the road, should anyone ever question you about the paper, of your real-time opinion of the matter.

It will cost you less than $6.00 to do this, and you'll be able to show people "See, I tried to tell them."

Interesting CYA move. Quite shrewd. That's why they pay you the big bucks! Also, if necessary, you have a notable and motley group of witnesses right here, on CTN!
For example...

I keed!

CathyCA wrote:AD, it might make you feel better to document everything in a letter. Mail it to YOURSELF, certified mail, return receipt requested, so that you'll have proof later on down the road, should anyone ever question you about the paper, of your real-time opinion of the matter.

It will cost you less than $6.00 to do this, and you'll be able to show people "See, I tried to tell them."

Thank you! That's a very interesting idea. I'll start documenting things now - especially when I start going through the data to check it yet again.

lawgrad91 wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:I had a chat with my boss this morning. The answer I got was that my name has to be on the paper because the PI pays 20% of my salary. I tried the "I didn't do the data analysis" argument; the response was that they pay 20% of my salary for my expert opinion. I then pointed out as diplomatically as possible that I'm blown off any time I raise concerns about interpretation. The one thing I didn't say is that the boss has actually sided against me in these arguments on multiple occasions. The final upshot is that I have to go through all the data that she's reporting in the paper and that we'll meet with the person doing the analysis (without her boss) and go through it all. That's all well and good, assuming it actually works. I have my doubts. I've been thrown under the bus in too many meetings with this particular PI to believe that it won't be the case here as well. I'd love to be proven wrong. In any case, I'll either feel better about what's in the paper or the boss and I will be having this same conversation again. One funny note: idiot PI got my name wrong in the draft of the manuscript. I have lost count of the number of times I've told these people that I use my middle initial in my name when I publish; they omitted it. This may sound minor, but if you go to PubMed and do an author search using my first and middle initials this paper wouldn't show up. I know this because I have another paper from a previous job where this happened. Now ask me if I've corrected it in the current manuscript.

Can you "correct" your name to reflect, say Supervisor Barbie's?

Trust me, I thought about it. I also thought about intentionally correcting my name with a misspelled version. They'll never catch it.

ArkieDukie wrote:

lawgrad91 wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:I had a chat with my boss this morning. The answer I got was that my name has to be on the paper because the PI pays 20% of my salary. I tried the "I didn't do the data analysis" argument; the response was that they pay 20% of my salary for my expert opinion. I then pointed out as diplomatically as possible that I'm blown off any time I raise concerns about interpretation. The one thing I didn't say is that the boss has actually sided against me in these arguments on multiple occasions. The final upshot is that I have to go through all the data that she's reporting in the paper and that we'll meet with the person doing the analysis (without her boss) and go through it all. That's all well and good, assuming it actually works. I have my doubts. I've been thrown under the bus in too many meetings with this particular PI to believe that it won't be the case here as well. I'd love to be proven wrong. In any case, I'll either feel better about what's in the paper or the boss and I will be having this same conversation again. One funny note: idiot PI got my name wrong in the draft of the manuscript. I have lost count of the number of times I've told these people that I use my middle initial in my name when I publish; they omitted it. This may sound minor, but if you go to PubMed and do an author search using my first and middle initials this paper wouldn't show up. I know this because I have another paper from a previous job where this happened. Now ask me if I've corrected it in the current manuscript.

Can you "correct" your name to reflect, say Supervisor Barbie's?

Trust me, I thought about it. I also thought about intentionally correcting my name with a misspelled version. They'll never catch it.

"I'm right in the middle of legally changing my name. To avoid confusion, can this paper be published using my new name?"

I despise them.

An update: I made it though all of the data analysis and flagged some problematic areas. Today I had a chance to read a manuscript, and I found a blatantly false statement regarding the data interpretation that was done by the PI's minion, and this statement was made multiple times. I pointed it out to my boss and told him that it was not consistent with anything I had seen (I used the undiplomatic term "blatant lie"). His response was that he hadn't seen the data to support my claim. I now have to go back and generate additional information to go with the previous work that I did, in order to prove to my boss that the statements in the manuscript are false. Guess how I'm going to be spending my weekend.

What really ticks me off about this whole thing is that the minion fudged the results and I'm having to prove it. Why isn't the minion having to prove that she DIDN'T fudge? And why isn't my boss willing to take my word for the fact that the results are fudged? Is it because he doesn't want to tick off the PI, who is a dept chair?

And, no, I still haven't corrected my name on the manuscript.

Good luck with this horrible situation. You need a Sending you more vibes.

ArkieDukie wrote:A friend from church told me that there's a name that directors use in film credits when they don't want their name associated with a particular project - David Smithee, I believe he said. I could also come up with a pseudonym. Maybe I should use Supervisor Barbie's name.

Actually it's Alan Smithee and it's a well known pseudonym in Hollywood and the theater world. It's used mostly by directors who lose control of films or productions to TPTB and insist on taking their names off a project. (When I wear too many hats in a short play festival - producer, playwright, director, and/or actor - I use Rollo Tomasi or Harlan Pepper as my directing pseudonyms.)

One thing about that paper though, it's not being prepared for publication, just submission, right? It still has to go through peer review, yes? Let's hope it doesn't make it past the reviewers.

Bostondevil wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:A friend from church told me that there's a name that directors use in film credits when they don't want their name associated with a particular project - David Smithee, I believe he said. I could also come up with a pseudonym. Maybe I should use Supervisor Barbie's name.

Actually it's Alan Smithee and it's a well known pseudonym in Hollywood and the theater world. It's used mostly by directors who lose control of films or productions to TPTB and insist on taking their names off a project. (When I wear too many hats in a short play festival - producer, playwright, director, and/or actor - I use Rollo Tomasi or Harlan Pepper as my directing pseudonyms.)

One thing about that paper though, it's not being prepared for publication, just submission, right? It still has to go through peer review, yes? Let's hope it doesn't make it past the reviewers.

The very sad thing about academic papers is that there is so much crap that gets past the reviewers. Every paper must be read with a critical, skeptical eye. Way too much bullshit gets published.

Just for giggles, I had pizza and beer for dinner and have already arrogantly farted three times in the general direction of St.Louis, aiming for the minion! ;)

DukePA wrote:

Bostondevil wrote:

ArkieDukie wrote:A friend from church told me that there's a name that directors use in film credits when they don't want their name associated with a particular project - David Smithee, I believe he said. I could also come up with a pseudonym. Maybe I should use Supervisor Barbie's name.

Actually it's Alan Smithee and it's a well known pseudonym in Hollywood and the theater world. It's used mostly by directors who lose control of films or productions to TPTB and insist on taking their names off a project. (When I wear too many hats in a short play festival - producer, playwright, director, and/or actor - I use Rollo Tomasi or Harlan Pepper as my directing pseudonyms.)

One thing about that paper though, it's not being prepared for publication, just submission, right? It still has to go through peer review, yes? Let's hope it doesn't make it past the reviewers.

The very sad thing about academic papers is that there is so much crap that gets past the reviewers. Every paper must be read with a critical, skeptical eye. Way too much bullshit gets published.

That's exactly right, DPA. And, as an added bonus, some labs are known for publishing questionable data. I can think of one prominent lab in my field for whom you can only believe about 50% of their published data - that's a quote from my boss. Call me crazy, but I don't want to have that type of reputation.

captmojo wrote:Just for giggles, I had pizza and beer for dinner and have already arrogantly farted three times in the general direction of St.Louis, aiming for the minion! ;)

Thanks, captmojo! You gave me a much-needed laugh.

ArkieDukie wrote:

captmojo wrote:Just for giggles, I had pizza and beer for dinner and have already arrogantly farted three times in the general direction of St.Louis, aiming for the minion! ;)

Thanks, captmojo! You gave me a much-needed laugh.

Success!