How to Talk to Co-Author About Questionable Research Practices

How to Talk to a Co-Author About Questionable Research Practices (Without Breaking the Collaboration)

You're reviewing a manuscript draft from a collaborator. You notice something that bothers you: data presented without mentioning a failed prior analysis, a methodological choice that seems designed to produce significant results, or a claim that the data doesn't quite support. Your stomach tightens. How do you raise this without accusing them of misconduct? How do you maintain the collaboration while protecting your reputation?

Why This Conversation Is Hard

The difficulty isn't technical—it's social. In academia, authorship creates power dynamics, reputational entanglement, and financial stakes. Questioning a collaborator's choices risks:

• Damaging a professional relationship you may depend on.
• Being labeled "difficult" in a small field.
• Losing future collaboration opportunities.
• Escalating to formal misconduct charges (which benefits no one).
• They may have innocent explanations you haven't considered.

Most researchers default to silence. But silence makes you complicit. So how do you navigate this?

Step 1: Get Your Facts Straight First

Before saying anything, verify your concern. Ask yourself: Is this definitely a problem, or am I misunderstanding? Common scenarios that aren't automatically misconduct:

• Missing results reported: Maybe they're described elsewhere or noted as limitations. Check the full draft.
• Methodological choice: Even if it seems self-serving, it might be justified by the literature. Ask yourself: would an expert in this field approve?
• Phrasing that overstates findings: Sometimes it's just imprecise writing, not intentional deception.

A useful test: "If an independent reviewer raised this issue, would my collaborator have a legitimate defense?" If yes, it's a discussion point, not a red flag. If no, you have a real problem.

Step 2: Assume Good Intent (Initially)

Start from the assumption that your collaborator didn't intend to mislead. This assumption often proves correct—and it shapes your tone. Approach them as a curious colleague, not an investigator.

Good framing: "I'm a bit confused by X. Can you help me understand the reasoning?" This opens dialogue without accusation.

Bad framing: "This looks like you're hiding results to make your findings look better." This triggers defensiveness and ends productive conversation.

Step 3: Have the Conversation One-on-One, Early, and Informally

Don't raise concerns in group meetings, emails, or through intermediaries. These approaches feel like accusations. Instead:

• Request a private conversation (in person or video call, not email).
• Do it early, before the manuscript goes to submission or co-authors.
• Frame it as a question, not a judgment.

Example opening: "I've been thinking about the methods section, and I want to check something with you before we move forward. In the analysis of [X], I noticed [specific concern]. What was your thinking there?"

Step 4: Listen to Their Explanation

They may have a legitimate reason you hadn't considered. Perhaps:

• Results were reported elsewhere and they assumed you knew.
• The methodological choice was made by a collaborator with domain expertise you lack.
• They're planning to address it in a revision.

If their explanation satisfies you, great. Document it mentally (or in a follow-up email summary if appropriate): "Thanks for clarifying. I understand now that X was chosen because Y."

If their explanation doesn't satisfy you, proceed to Step 5.

Step 5: Express Your Concern Clearly

If you remain concerned after listening, articulate your issue specifically:

Format: "I understand your reasoning, but I'm still concerned that [specific issue] could be interpreted as [problem] by reviewers. I'm worried this could affect the manuscript's credibility or put us at risk. Can we discuss how to address it?"

This does two things: it states the problem clearly and explains why you care (protecting the manuscript and both your reputations).

Step 6: Propose a Solution, Not Just a Problem

Don't just say "this is wrong." Suggest alternatives:

• "Could we add a note in the methods explaining why this approach was chosen?"
• "Should we report the failed analysis to be transparent?"
• "Would it help to tone down this claim and cite the limitation?"

Solutions-focused conversations maintain collaboration because they move toward resolution rather than blame.

Step 7: Know When to Escalate

Most conversations resolve at Step 5. But if your collaborator refuses to address legitimate concerns, or becomes defensive and hostile, you need to escalate carefully:

Document your concern: Send a follow-up email summarizing your concern and their response: "Based on our conversation, I want to note that I remain concerned about [X]. I believe this should be addressed before submission because [reason]."

Involve a PI or senior author: If you're junior, talk to your supervisor. "I have a concern about the manuscript that I've raised with [collaborator]. I'm not sure how to resolve it. Can I get your input?"

Withdraw authorship if necessary: If you genuinely believe the work violates integrity standards and the collaborator refuses to correct it, consider removing your name: "I can no longer be a co-author on this manuscript given [specific concern]. I hope you'll address this before publication."

Withdrawing authorship is nuclear, but it's better than being tied to work you believe is problematic.

Prevent Future Issues

Before starting collaborations:

• Discuss expectations for data transparency, analytical choices, and reporting standards early.
• Agree on authorship order and contributions upfront.
• Plan how you'll handle disagreements if they arise.

Conclusion

Conversations about questionable research practices are uncomfortable but necessary. The key is approaching them as a collaborator seeking to protect shared work, not as a judge determining guilt. Most colleagues appreciate honesty. A few will become defensive—and that's useful information about whether you want to collaborate with them again. By having these conversations early and respectfully, you protect your integrity, your reputation, and the field.

Keywords: questionable research practices, authorship conflicts, research collaboration, resolving disputes, research ethics communication, co-author dynamics