Adviser doesn't read drafts and is ignoring me...HELP

[anonymous_scientist]

Posting this one anonymously...

My adviser has had a draft of a manuscript for 3 months now and hasn't read it... Before this, I had been giving him sections as they were written (he requested this so he could provide feedback as pieces were produced, but that never happened). Things I have tried: 

1) Reminder emails

2) Reminding him of the manuscript when we met (both before WFH started and now over zoom)

3) Setting deadlines / timelines for submission (which he agrees to, but then they pass by even with my reminders that we won't meet deadline X if Y isn't done by Z)

4) Allowing him to use our regular meeting to edit (he does not read the paper when I've tried this several times when he's suggested it). 

5) Real time editing. My adviser is open to meetings, so I have begun to use that time to sit with him as he reads the paper and provides feedback in real time. He doesn't like this but it's the only way I've gotten progress done. We got through the introduction doing this. 

6) Doing everything else I can do (getting others in the lab to read it and incorporating their feedback, looking up editors for the journal we want to submit to...)

7) Trying to talk to my adviser and explain that I feel discouraged at the pace we're moving at (he apologizes a lot and I feel good temporarily until I realize there has been no change in behavior)

8 ) Talking to my committee about it and asking for their advice (two sympathized with him because they're also PIs and it's so hard, one said just wait and do one paper for grad school...this paper is complete NOW I do not want to redo this whole thing in a year with a slightly altered paper). 

I feel so trapped and lost and like no matter what I do, on some level this reflects on me as 'non-productive.' What more can I do? What options do I have left? 

[Sigaba]

How long is the draft manuscript?

Broadly, which area are you in (STEM, social sciences, humanities?

How difficult would it be for you to incorporate the feedback you've received so far and produced a revised draft with a very concise memo (three to five pages) that summarizes the manuscript, highlights the changes from draft to revised draft, and a list of next steps that could include action items?

[anonymous_scientist]

Thank you so much for your response!

24 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

How long is the draft manuscript?

29 pages double spaced, 12 of which include results and discussion (the sections he most wants to review). 

25 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

Broadly, which area are you in (STEM, social sciences, humanities?

STEM (biomedical)

26 minutes ago, Sigaba said:

How difficult would it be for you to incorporate the feedback you've received so far and produced a revised draft with a very concise memo (three to five pages) that summarizes the manuscript, highlights the changes from draft to revised draft, and a list of next steps that could include action items?

I have incorporated all the feedback from him on the sections we did live editing on. I have also incorporated the feedback from my other readers in the lab so the draft he has is a revised draft. He hasn't read any draft of it at all, so I'm unsure how highlighting the changes would help him. Most of the other people in the lab have suggested smaller changes, things like grammar and small sentence-level changes, nothing substantive to the overall organization or message. I have suggested summarizing the sections so he doesn't have to read as much and can focus on big picture editing, but he refuses and says he 'just needs to sit down with it in a quiet place and read it through, really focusing on it'

I did attempt something like these action items in the form of a calendar which I presented at one of our meetings. He agreed that it seemed reasonable (included things like deadlines for him to give feedback, a planned submission deadline by the end of the month, dates for me to have the cover letter to him by, etc) and I sent it to him via email after the meeting. We've missed the first deadline... I've tried deadlines before (and getting him to agree to read a section of the draft before our next meeting). He agrees enthusiastically. I check in halfway through to the deadline and he says it won't be an issue, then the meeting/deadline happens and he regretfully says he hasn't had any time to read it. 

[Sigaba]

Based upon the additional information you've provided, I recommend that you pull back from your efforts to get his support. It's my sense that at some level he is resisting (if not resentful of) your efforts to motivate him to do his job.

Instead, in the short term, I recommend that you look for people who can give you the level of technical support that you need, get their feedback, and then see about incorporating their notes into your manuscript.

Meanwhile, maybe start thinking about the viability of changing up your committee. (Before you make any decisions, please please please understand your options. Was the PI who said "just do one paper" telling you that you only need to do one? If this is the case, then what are the benefits and challenges of doing a second paper?)

Ultimately, the best possible outcome from this experience is that you develop a sense of the kind of adviser you want to be and start developing now the skills you'll need to fulfill that vision. Right now and for the immediate future, this outcome may not do you much good but in the long run, you will feel better about yourself.

[anonymous_scientist]

I'm starting to think you're right. It's a little disheartening because I'm beginning to feel more and more trapped by the situation. Like I'm stuck staring at a wall and can't really make progress.

I will say my PI has told me and others in the lab to not be afraid to bug him about getting feedback. That he might seem frustrated but that he appreciates the reminders and sometimes just needs to be bothered enough to do whatever he said he would do. 

As far as changing up my committee, I'm in my 5th year so I doubt I can really modify it a lot at this point. The committee member who said just do one paper was suggesting that because that's how his lab works. Another committee member strongly thought I should do two papers because this one is finished now and there's no guarantee the other experiments that could be done to make the paper higher impact would work the way we expect (or be done in a timely manner; they require the skills of someone else in the lab and the use of unverified tools). A third was more agnostic and thought I could do either way. All members of my committee encouraged me to just keep checking in and asking for feedback. They sympathized with my PI but told me to just keep trying. I will say my PI is on board with submitting the paper now. He thinks it's a good story (the data has been around for more than a year now) and whenever he does give feedback on the messaging or figures it has been very positive. 

Finally, to your last point, I agree that I've learned so much about professionalism and management from my PhD. I will not be pursuing a career in academia, in part due to the long post-docs that are common in my specific field and the desires I have to be in a different environment. I love the freedom of academia, but it feels very slow to me. I also love working as part of a team and at least in my lab, this is rare. I'd much rather be facilitating a greater project/question than just focusing and struggling with my own story. But I will take from what I've experienced here and hopefully become a better leader / manager for it.