"We don't aim high"

[kasuto]

I'm brand new in academia and currently work as a Research Assistant. We're working on a paper where my Professor decided to assign me as the first author, but I'm not convinced by the method he proposed and he's pretty adamant about changing it. I have always been questioning the method and so far, he hasn't been able to answer any of my questions either. Additionally, when we asked other professors to review, they gave the comments/questions similar to mine. Finally, when I told him that I haven't been able to answer those questions and how it has been frustrating me, he said, "We don't aim high since we have a short timeline. We can set our scope in the introduction." He also said that we can just cite his previous published paper that utilizes the same method. What he said really demoralized me since I work mainly to gain experience; I didn't even expect that I would publish a paper in the beginning.

My research friend told me that he might have a minimum number of published paper requirement, that's why he's trying to play it "safe". But is it common for researchers/professors to do that?

Also, am I being too naive if I feel I shouldn't be the first author since I can't even explain with confidence why we're using the method? I know that some people say I should be grateful since my Professor is giving me the chance to become the first author, but I don't feel right...

Would love to know your opinions!

 

[Meraki]

I would be concerned about being the first author on a paper I don't fully support or can't properly explain. The order of authorship and what it means can vary by field (I am in the social sciences), but it sounds like you're feeling the same way. In my field, the first author should be the one who made the greatest contribution to the study or paper, and is typically the point of contact if anyone has questions or comments about the paper once it's published. I would be honest about your hesitation to take the lead on something you don't understand. Considering you're "brand new to academia," I wouldn't push about the method being wrong until you've learned more and have the knowledge and tact to effectively argue against it. I would frame the discussion around your lack of understanding, and either ask how/where you can learn more or ask if he or another co-author could take the lead.

I don't think "aiming high" or "setting the scope" has anything to do with using an inappropriate method for a study. I mean, I sometimes see papers in lower tier journals with poor methods, small samples, poor analytic technique; it's possible that he's shooting for low hanging fruit to publish things quickly to get tenure. However, if a method is simply wrong, then aiming for lower tier journals isn't really going to help. But he's published using this method before, which makes me think there's something to it, even if it's not the best method for your study's purpose. I would expect that just citing his previous paper isn't enough to support the use of the method if it's unconventional, but again, reviewers may be less concerned about this at lower tier journals if some other aspects of the paper are compelling. I recommend trying to learn more about the method, starting with looking at how he frames it in his previous paper and if he cites any other relevant papers you can learn from.

Edited March 28, 2019 by Meraki

[kasuto]

Thank you so much for your advice,  @Meraki!!!!!

5 hours ago, Meraki said:

But he's published using this method before, which makes me think there's something to it, even if it's not the best method for your study's purpose. I would expect that just citing his previous paper isn't enough to support the use of the method if it's unconventional, but again, reviewers may be less concerned about this at lower tier journals if some other aspects of the paper are compelling. I recommend trying to learn more about the method, starting with looking at how he frames it in his previous paper and if he cites any other relevant papers you can learn from.

1

You're right! His method is not completely wrong. It's oversimplified since it creates so many assumptions that people have actually already solved (based on my understanding so far). But following our argument, he told me recently that my questions are valid and the method is indeed too simple, but he plans to publish it first as the preliminary study and keep improving it in the next iteration (which made me feel so much better!). But yeah, meanwhile, I'll definitely try to understand the method from his perspective. ?

 

[CuppaMatcha]

Trust your instincts on this. I agree with Meraki that your professor is most interested in pushing this paper through just to work towards tenure. Also, I know some professors insist on listing students first not out of professional courtesy/paying it forward/whatever, but so that they can claim that they have a marvelous record of helping students publish their work and assisting students with their research. 

You are the one paying for an education and the one putting in the work for your degree. If you're not comfortable having your name listed first, insist on having it listed second. Your professor is not doing you a favor by listing you as the top contributor for preliminary research.