The paper won't get published - I think / feel?

[Primula]

(mostly just complaining)

 

So my work contract has ended during thesis-writing paper-writing and it looked like everything is going to be finished next Tuesday.

More than one year later, it looks the same. 

Largely it is stuck because of my co-author who is not even working on a research position (MD in clinic).

 

Most of the time it was like "OK so let's get the paper submitted so we can submit the thesis (though it can be technically done before), then I can get a reference that also says that thesis is already submitted, and that should be enough for a postdoc position".

So far nothing, plus the thesis cannot be *defended* until the paper is published, and I don't like the project anyway (it was supposed to be just a small side project) + even when I was in the lab it was impossible (the PI was against that, my supervisor, who is deputy of the PI, was for that) to get some help from technical assistants. So if the reviewers ask for more experiments it will take approximately forever, I guess.

[MHarry]

Sorry OP, your post is kind of difficult to follow. Does your thesis consist of one paper that you are currently trying to publish? It sounds like you are doing a PhD right now since you mentioned a post-doc position, however, I am unsure since most PhD's thesis consist of multiple research projects. Please clarify?

Based on the above info, all I can say is that there is a home for everything. I have been surprised both by papers that have gotten accepted vs papers that have gotten rejected. for instance, recently I had a paper published that I thought there was NO chance that it was going to get into that journal, whereas earlier this year I had a paper that I thought would FOR SURE at least go to review in a specific journal and it got triaged within 24 hours. Moral of the story is that its always a bit of a crapshoot, and as long as the science isn't completely fundamentally flawed, it will find a home....hell, I've had one paper that got rejected 7-8 times prior to getting accepted! This paper I probably put the most hours into it, but it is in the lowest impact journal out of my publications....however, I view it as a (painful) learning experience. Persistence is key my friend. Keep your chin up and good luck!

 

 

[Primula]

If I am doing a PhD right now... well, I don't have a doctoral candidate contract anymore, but I am not yet PhD and basically I am just waiting and doing unrelated temporary jobs just to pay the rent. 

My thesis is going to include this-paper-in-progress and one already published paper where I am author no. 6, but most common situation (at our faculty) is that the thesis includes just one paper. 

 

 

Yeah, I am aware that everything can be published somehow (the question is if the other people would agree to it, e.g. I have also quite some negative results and it would make a PLOS ONE paper but both my supervisor and the PI are against publishing that... at least now), but I am beginning to think that the best thing time-wise would be just start a new PhD because it would be simply much faster plus meaning that I will actually do *something* in the meantime (as position "PhD desirable but not necessary" are totally rare). I actually think I was way too much persistent (when I should already give up and start doing something else).

[fuzzylogician]

I'm confused about your situation. You've gone through a 5-year PhD program, can't finish, and you want to start a new program? That might be hard without getting letters of recommendation from your current professors or having much to show (research-wise) from your current program. It's also unclear how that could take less time than working to get your paper published, since you say that work has been done and the paper already exists. Maybe this is the time to look for school-internal remedies for how to deal with an advisor who won't let you graduate but also isn't taking the steps to get your work up to par to where it could be defendable (the ombudsperson comes to mind). Overall, though, having a PhD based on just one paper that you can't get published doesn't sound like necessarily the best position to start a career from. Maybe it's worth improving the work, like it sounds that your advisors want. 

[Primula]

57 minutes ago, fuzzylogician said:

You've gone through a 5-year PhD program, can't finish, and you want to start a new program?

Three years. (or two years, I did not have a contract for the third year) I live in Germany (should have mentioned but my point was just the HEY THIS PUBLICATION PROCESS IS GOING TO TAKE QUITE SOME TIME, ISN'T IT, not really the "so what to do next" part), here it is the standard time, so the next PhD would be also for three years. (same like the one paper situation; cumulative thesis is not even allowed) Looking at the speed of everything, it does not seem so bad. 

 

1 hour ago, fuzzylogician said:

 It's also unclear how that could take less time than working to get your paper published, since you say that work has been done and the paper already exists. 

The paper already exists, but I cannot finish it myself (partially clinical work - that's the trouble, the people are working in clinic and don't have any research position and it is not even an university hospital, so basically no way put them under pressure through the uni). And that's just the first version, then it is going to be either edited for another journal or comments of the reviewers will be addressed and I don't expect it to be any faster. Plus it is possible that the reviewers will ask for some more experiments - and it is wet lab biology (read: not bioinformatics), so I just cannot do it on my home computer and have to wait for someone else to do it. Well, also not really optimistic about how long it would take. 

At this point, my advisor is not really the problem IMO (I could submit the thesis and then be in the "I can defend it when the paper is published" situation, but now I am unsure if it is the right thing to do, that puts me in "thesis submitted, I will be PhD soon and you will have to pay me twice more, LOL" when applying for a PhD and "thesis submitted, but the paper is not yet published, so it is unclear when I will be finally PhD and it could lead to quite some trouble" when applying for a postdoc and nothing in particular when applying for non-research jobs I think) - except for maybe being way-too-optimistic (general trait).

 

Considering that the paper was already reasonable in May 2016 (not a rough draft or something like that) and since then it was either waiting or HEY I DECIDED TO CHANGE THAT, I don't think that even if we submit it tomorrow it will go really fast. Even if it is accepted with minor revisions in the first journal. Still it takes time to get OK from everybody.

[Primula]

First to the original reason for posting which was "that's going to take a long time, right?".

Well, I basically got the answer in "hell, I've had one paper that got rejected 7-8 times prior to getting accepted!" - if it happens and we need six months of mailing back and forth before we decide on another submission, then I need 3.5 - 4 years. Why should I expect that others will work faster than they did till now? 

 

******

Soooo an update (or not really much of an update); I started with applications for other PhD positions but did not yet cancel this PhD (I will have to do it if I'm accepted anywhere though).

 

My supervisor wrote me on July 16th that she is sorry, she got to revisions of (the version from May 22nd) only now and she will send them ASAP... well still nothing. 

 

My major problem is that I am not sure that the material is good enough to pass thesis defense. It is not something I can change by putting more effort and time into that, it is the sheer amount of experiments (done in a lab, so it is not like I can continue doing more work on my own). Actually it is less work than my MSc. thesis.

In December 2016, she told me - after evaluating results for the paper mentioned above, the one I am still waiting for - that "together with the (elite journal) co-authorship and the paper with A., I think it could be your thesis". I THINK. And IT COULD BE. Even at this point it did not sound very convincing, right? Two months later it showed that A. fabricated the data (which I was saying already between Christmas and New Year... and already in September I was saying that A. is too clumsy and just won't be ever able to use methods she was using). 

Well, my supervisor (finally) accepted that A. fabricated the "treatment X control" data, but still thought that the (laboratory) methods she was using worked and insisted that we keep trying to use exactly the same setup because "it worked before" + "we can use her other data, instead of doing everything again". Which was basically when I put her (my supervisor) in the "way too optimistic" box. We can't get the system to work, the only person who could work with that fabricated data, and you still believe that it ever worked?

 

 

My plan A was to re-do the experiments A. did (it was my original project anyway) but yeah, could not reproduce her "perfect" results. And then I did not get another work contract, so bye bye lab work.

Plan B was to finish the paper and the thesis ASAP, submit both, and just see if it is good enough. Turned out that ASAP takes quite some time.

So the options now are:

1) starting another PhD and start working in a research lab in two months (for example)

2)  working in warehouses and fast foods "until the thesis is defended" (the paper has to be *published* before), then applying for a postdoc with "two years PhD study, one year unemployed, one year in a warehouse, thesis based on 1.2 papers") - plus it is not guaranteed that the thesis will past the defense (based on the amount of data which I cannot change)

3) working in warehouses and fast foods for six months (until I can afford to move back to my home country, which I cannot do now), moving back, getting some qualified job outside research, then either staying for at least two years or letting them make troubles (bad references and such) for leaving "too early"... and then maybe applying for another PhD anyway