It is an interesting thought. Ethical issues were never raised with me, and I'm not sure where they would stem from. The relationship between my co-author and I is that we are friends and there is no question of her capacity. The issue of censorship was expressed to me as being for the comfortability of readers (even though I did include an introductory clause that the article would be about sex).

Thanks for your reply. Yes I discussed with my supervisor extensively (she is an actively involved supervisor) and even cried in her office. It was a totally gutting decision. The paper was co-authored with someone who might normally be considered a "participant", but we co wrote it, and it was based on her story and experiences. The parts that they wanted to censor were direct quotes from her, and part of her story and experience. She was very insulted by these suggested edits (and I don't blame her). I was also insulted and just felt I couldn't publish the work with integrity with the suggested censorship.

I agree that I would normally take all the comments by reviewers. In this case though, this was not a suggestion form the reviewers. They both thought the frank discussion was an important aspect of the paper. It was the editors who imposed these requirements. I pulled the paper 2 months ago (and resubmitted elsewhere) but i'm still so disappointed by how it went down.

Hi everyone. I was wondering if anyone has ever experienced a censorship requirement for manuscript publication, or if you have ever read/come across an article where parts were explicitly "censored" or "redacted due to content?

Here is the story. I do research on relationships and sexuality. Part way through my PhD, with no data, I was feeling the pressure of publication (like so many of us do). So I put my dissertation research on hold and spent months writing a manuscript, with a unique methodology, that I was very proud of. I submitted it to a national journal. 6 months after submission I received the feedback from reviewers, who had revision requirements, but the comments were overwhelmingly positive, and both reviewers stated that the work was important and should be published.

I completed the revisions and resubmitted and I waited. 6 months after that I received word from the editors that the manuscript was accepted, but that they had censorship requirements. They stated they would only publish the work if sections of the paper (that had to do with sex, but which used medical terminology, not slang or derogatory language) were redacted for publication. The parts that they wanted censored, I felt, were key parts of the paper. In addition the purpose of the paper was to encourage more frank and open discussion about sexuality, so any censorship felt particularly antagonistic to my overall purpose.

After much agony I decided to pull the paper. This was particularly painful as it would have been my first first-authored paper, something I desperately need, and also because it spent so long under revision.

So now i've been asking anyone I can if they have ever heard of censorship of academic scholarship. I have yet to hear of a single report. I'd be really interested to know if anyone has ever encountered this and if you could point me to where you have seen it. Thanks!

...After finding out today that the department secretary (who doesn’t like me because I once questioned her and brought it higher up) has been tasked with recommending certain students for funding over others, I was nearly in tears. This is so wrong on so many levels, but if I bring it higher up and get them in trouble, they most certainly will not recommend me for funding. I have felt so bullied by this department I am close to throwing in the towel. I normally work from home in order to avoid people who have labelled me a trouble maker (because of my work). I have never felt so hated as when I walk down the halls of my institution. I got through a 4 year undergraduate degree and and a 2 year masters and during all of that I was in such good graces with the profs and staff that I was labelled the teachers pet. Now i'm in this PhD and feel bullied by grown adults. I could handle critiques directly of my work, or bullying masked as academic rigour, but this is straight up administrative bullying.

Anyways this has all led to extreme demotivation. I like the work I do, but I constantly have to put it on hold and deal with the department mess. This has turned me from a highly productive, optimistic and self-confident person to someone who is often yelling and crying in frustration, and then of course I just want to hide from the work and then all productivity stops. I question every single day why they would accept me into the program, just to turn around and treat me like this.

I’ve read a lot online about people who quit their PhD because they don’t like the work, or their supervisors/committees are nasty to them, but this isn’t exactly my experience.

Anyways, I really just needed to vent about this. I hope none of you mind. If anyone has any similar experiences, I would love to commiserate with you.

Hello everyone. I am new here and I need to vent and see if other people have any similar experiences to mine.

I am a 4th year PhD student at a Canadian university, and even though I love my supervisor and my research topic, I am so disgusted by my department and my discipline that I am ready to quit even though I’m ABD. I do disability studies work (qualitatively looking at how disability brings positive things to people's lives) but I’m in a small off branch of medicine. My work, and thus me, is completely dismissed by my department (except my supervisor). It would be like doing critical race theory work inside a eugenics department.

This has led to me feeling kicked by the department repeatedly and I’m miserable. They have repeatedly done things which are against university rules, but I can't report them higher up for fear of retaliation. Here are a few examples: I took over my supervisor’s master’s courses while she was on sabbatical. When negotiating salary, etc. for the position (essentially a temporary faculty position), they told me they didn't value the content, instructed me that they would not pay me more than a measly "honorarium (less than 10% of what I should have been making) and said if I didn't accept that, or if I went to the union, they would simply cut the curriculum content (which my supervisor has spent 20 years developing) and it would be my fault.

Another example is funding. The admin is constantly hounding me to get outside funding, and yet they refuse to send my funding applications outside of the department (in Canada most outside funding I could get has to pass a round of vetting by the department first). I have spent so many hours compiling these applications, and they have repeatedly passed along every other applicant except me, even candidates who have no publications and no conference presentations (I have 2 publications, over 10 conference presentations and I’ve been an invited international keynote speaker) (cont. below).