I am an training PhD student in a top 25 school in physics, and thus, not a top 10 school. I recently submitted my first first-author paper to a journal which expounds upon results from my advisor. Recently, in work not to be included in that paper, I found results that put doubt in not only my work, but of the work of my advisor for the last couple of years.<p>We are not a large group and we are hurting for publications, especially as a major review for renewal of our funding is coming up, and thus, it has been suggested to me to compartmentalize and perhaps publish another paper later that can revisit these doubts.<p>Just last week, when I first realized these issues, and ironically that same day, I received an email that that paper has been accepted by the journal.<p>Is this typical? Is it by chance that since my university is not the cream of the crop and we are more desperate for funding that we are willing to do this?  I often see scientists from school&#x27;s with higher reputations post here (MIT,Stanford,...), so I&#x27;m curious if this is just due our lower profile. It is true we have problems publishing because we do not have name recognition, and academia is hardly a meritocracy, as I&#x27;ve found. Am I just too idealistic? My advisor suggested that this might not be invalidating but might just be something relegated to the &quot;future work&quot; part of the paper in the final revision.<p>It&#x27;s poor taste to go throwaway and pour my heart out, but I have been bothered greatly for these past few days over this. Thank you for any suggestions.
Ask Scientists on HN: Have you ever had to compromise for publications?