Hi Guys,

I know this is not the typical problem posted here but a very relevant topic I think.

Somehow I have got some initial results that are slightly publishable. I think that I should do another 1-2 months work of lab work to round out the paper and get something that will make a good thesis chapter. As I can repeat the method with different starting reactants and hopefully find a nice trend or prove that the reactants are comparable. In my field using several reactants and comparing is normal for what I am doing.

The problem is my supervisor thinks I should just try and publish what I have now, otherwise I will have too much data. She believes that it will take 6 months to publish anyway, so better get in early and start the review process. She is rushing me to write something but I don't think it will be a quality paper, as there simply wont be enough data. I would rather do some work and do it right.

Should I just listen to her and write something now or this an issue I should fight over? I have had a lot of disagreements over the last few months on a range of issues, and I want some other opinions. I can elaborate more if necessary.

I take your side on this but you can solve two problems with one stone here by thinking strategically.
She probably knows you won't get published straight away. No way will that happen.
By the time you have submitted the first draft and had it rejected you will be 6 months down the line and in a position to add your new findings during your revisions. The revision cycle will probably be a few weeks. That way you get your way without pissing her off and your turnaround time to publish ends up being weeks rather than months. If you do it your way the clock of 6 months doesnt start until you finish all of your extra work.

I would humour her on this and play the longer game.

Hi rewt. Your topic is not typically posted here but I think it is a quite common problem.
Let me start by telling me my experience. I worked with two supervisors/PIs. Supervisor1 pushes to publish and believes that what you have is sufficient. Supervisor2 prefers to do more experiments and put more theory and publish in a higher ranked conference or journal. Personally I found supervisor1 approach is better because it led to a better publications output at the end.
Do you intend to put more data to target a higher ranked conference or journal or just to increase your chances of acceptance? If you want only to increase your chances, then listen to your supervisor. She knows better how much is sufficient. Also the six months waiting is something that you should take into consideration. I had a paper submitted to a journal and after back and forth for a year and a half, it was accepted by another smaller journal. There is also a chance that you prepare more material after submission. This material might be useful for the corrections asked by the reviewers.

You are right, I should start the paper now. I think most of the interesting results will be ready by the time I finish writing the first draft of my current stuff (I am a slow writer). I will include them if they are ready but will submit anyway. Though I am going to make clear that I am doing the extra work anyway, even if just for my appendix.

My supervisor wants to go for a relatively good journal that readily accepts this work but is notoriously slow. So I can just include the later data in the revisions. I just feel a bit uncomfortable submitting something I know is not my best work and has clear flaws, just to speed up the process. Unfortunately that is academia, got to make compromises somewhere.

Thanks for the advice, sometimes I get stuck in my won thought chamber.