Hi there,

Sorry if this has been addressed elsewhere. I am in the process of submitting a paper including much of my doctoral research. The paper includes compelling new findings and could be a fairly strong paper. My supervisor at the time contributed to the work analysing part of the data. Unfortunately, i was unable to not point out to him several times how much of his analysis was inaccurate, irreproducible, and in some instances, plain wrong. These arguments of course ended up in me coerced to accept his version. So my situation at the moment is that we are trying to publish the manuscript the way he wants, wth me giving up my research ethic for the sake of an hypothetical high-impact first author publication. I can't be bothered anymore to be hunted by thoughts of publishing something not entirely accurate but i begin to think that this can obstacle me in the future. Specifically, i would like to follow up some of our findings but not from the standpoint of this paper. Could i publish this now and then publish something later which takes back something and add something else from the first publication? This paper could also include some wrong concepts, and again, part of the results are not reproducible, how much this is likely to affect my career, considering that i am the first author, but not the last one? Thanks in advance for your inputs.

Cheers

Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick but I would **never*** publish something I do not fully believe in, regardless of the effect that it can have on my career.

I am unclear on what you are seeking advice on. In your title you say "Should I seek the publication of a controversial paper?" but then you go on to explain (what sounds like) that you are going ahead with it and simply asking what impact it could have. If you are already at that point then I don't really have advice, but if you are still considering whether to go through with this, then don't! I mean, you are basically saying it has important errors that you are aware of. People RETRACT papers because such things are later discovered. Why publish it when you already are aware of them? Just put it behind you and go on to do better research based on what you've learnt from it. Also you talk about coercion. At the end of the day, you are responsible for what gets published with your name on it - especially as first author. If I was convinced that the paper really was crap/potentially misleading (because of the things you've described), I would state my case again to my supervisor and refuse to back down. Stick to the facts of the matter and avoid any emotional arguments. Good luck whatever you decide to do!

Did you discuss with your supervisor why you think that the analysis is inaccurate? Sensitive topic, but he should be able to defend his approach. If you see that the analysis is flawed, others will probably see that as well (assuming that you are right). Best case scenario the manuscript gets rejected right away. Worst case scenario you have to retract the whole thing later, which will reflect badly on you and definitely impact your career. Especially if you want to stay in that field, you should not consider a misleading publication with partially non reproducible results.

I'm sorry to hear that you're in this very awkward situation, but as I understand it, Academia is a somewhat selfish arena in which you have to stand by what you believe in, even if your supervisor isn't on the same page as you.

At the end of the day, your supervisor has already got their place in this Arena and I must agree with Dunham, others will probably see the flaws in the paper ( lets be honest, academics love to draw on the negatives of a paper more than the positives) and this will more than definitely stay with you for most of your career.

Your career is just starting out, don't let it be on the foundation of a clearly stupid, unsupportive supervisor.