Edit Rx Blog!

Many people ask me about what they should do if they have worked with a graduate student (Grad Student A) on research, after the graduate student leaves. If the graduate student has been working on research in a collaborative manner and states an intent to continue trying to publish the results of that research after leaving, then courtesy dictates that you should let them.

However, if your graduate student (Grad Student B) leaves research without a vested interest in continuing it, then you should absolutely take the initiative to write it up and publish it. As the graduate student to review the article and offer second authorship, but don't leave it to the disinterested graduate student to complete the work. It's in nobody's interest for the data to sit and rust.

The same is true of Graduate Student A: If, after a year has passed, you have had no news or word that anything is happening with the data, feel free to write it up, offer second authorship, and have them take a look at it. But don't let it just sit, when you have worked on it too.

Many people I have worked with have posed the following problem: They send out a manuscript to a third or fourth author for comments, and then that author sits on the manuscript for six months. This is absurd. This should not be allowed.

If you have a third or fourth author who has had your manuscript for a month or more (I would contact them at one month, no later if possible), I would take the following action steps:

1) Contact them and tell them they have one more week to return the manuscript to you.
2) Tell them that if you have not heard from them, you will assume that they approve of the manuscript as is.
3) Tell them that if they no longer wish to be an author on the manuscript, they should tell you now, please.

If they return the manuscript to you in that week (essentially, week five) with significant problems with the manuscript or suggesting significant revisions, then it is time for the first two authors to sit down and discuss a course of action. Are these suggestions valid? Or are they based on ego and power? Unfortunately, the revisions are going to fall into one of these two categories, and you will have to decide which one they belong to.

1) You can either accept the fact that the manuscript needs significant revision and make them, or
2) You can politely tell the author in question that you had sent them what you believe to be a polished manuscript and again, ask them whether they want to remain an author.

The third or fourth author can choose at this point to keep their name on a manuscript that you approve of, or remove themselves.

However, the main point is that you should establish an internal deadline for completing the manuscript and submitting it, and nobody who is ranked lower than the second author should significantly hold up the process.