Right back atcha

I totally get the rants from many of you professor-ish types about god-awful manuscript drafts from your trainees. I've looked back at my own cringe-worthy efforts, and I've blanched at equally bad writing from others.

But you're not off the hook either, you know. Based on my own experiences and what I hear from friends, here's my

List of Ridiculous Things Professors Do with Manuscripts.

1) Tell your trainee, "Well, I don't really think you have enough for a paper, but you can go ahead and write it up and we'll see."
WTF?? If you've somehow forgotten, it actually takes a lot of time to write up a manuscript. Even if the product is shoddy. The prospect of writing one only to have it treated as too pathetic to even consider revising? Nuh-uh.

2) Leave them on your desk for months on end.
I get it, I get it, you're so flabbergasted by the sheer stupidity of the manuscript that you ignore it rather than do anything about it. But see the complaint with #1 above. If you truly hate the ms., sit down with the student and explain why. Is it organized well but the writing's horrific? Is it illogical and incomprehensible to boot? Fine, but your sitting on it like it's a world-class egg is not going to help anybody. Also, on Dr Hyde's behalf: Totally uncool to sit on a draft you say is all but finished for Literally Four Months Despite Nudging.

3) Make illegible comments.
Sometimes I don't incorporate a comment from GradAdvisor into a draft, not because I disagree with it, but because I can't READ it. If your handwriting is illegible, and you know who you are, use the freakin' Word editor or whatever. Your chickenscratch makes me think you don't care about the paper enough to even form letters decently. Thanks.

4) Make inscrutable comments.
Gotta love it when you just circle a paragraph and write "?" You think my facts are wrong? You think this paragraph belongs elsewhere? You don't see the point in including this paragraph? Who knows? Next time I'm going to return the draft to you with your "?" circled in red and another "?" next to it.

5) "Fix" the manuscript back to the way I had it before.
I hear you, JP et al. Apparently this is just a habit you acquire when you become a professor, like tweed or Birkenstocks. But it is unbearably frustrating from the trainee's POV. What message are you sending? "Hmm, I read Draft 2 while (talking on the phone to my mother/changing my timing belt/playing Wii) and this sentence seemed out of place, but now when I read your correction in Draft 3, I realize it was ok after all." If you have to do this, for chrissakes explain why you're doing it. Explain why you changed it in the first place, and why you're changing it back now. Again, from the trainee's perspective it's as though you didn't care enough to think it through on the first read.

6) Promise you'll give it back to me with comments this week, and then don't.
We all have commitments. We're all overworked. If you pull this crap, and I know many of you do, have the basic decency to explain what's going on to your student and give a new date you can stick to. You hate it when trainees string you along like this; don't do it right back to them.

There's probably more I'm not thinking of right now. But here's the key thing:

Don't EVER forget that you hold total power over paper production, and we hold almost none. You get to decide what data goes in, what stays out; who's first author, who's stuck in acknowledgments; when to return drafts to us; when the paper is ready to get sent out; which journal it's going to; whether or not it ever sees the light of day. We can do lots of little things to nudge, but ultimately you're holding onto 1-5 years of our toil in that paper. That disparity between our raw need and your utter control makes us a wee bit nervous. Have a little compassion.