Mfcttrf

I graduated with a biology PhD last year. My supervisor named X was pretty hands-off (which was great) and most of my project, from conceptualization to data analysis, was done by me generally without much input from X partly because it wasn't X's area of expertise. I now have a full-time job doing math. X insists I meet with X to discuss how to turn a manuscript (rejected last year as I was writing my thesis because it required significant revisions and additional experiments) into publishable form for resubmission for grant money purposes, and then work on that on my own time.

So I was just wondering whether I have any obligation, professional/moral/official/other, to comply with X's request (other than my personal responsibility to publish stuff I've done and not waste time/resources I've used), because X is not going to be paying me to spend my free time working on this manuscript and this manuscript isn't going to help me with my career.

Approximate time to get this into publishable form is: 2-3 months working weekends by me to do additional analysis from existing data, and 6-12 months for additional experiments done by a person in X's lab who will require training from me.

Yes, I think you do have some obligations, not so much to your supervisor but to science itself, although 2-3 months working all weekend sounds like a bit much.

When you do academic research, you don't just publish the work for "grant money purposes" - you publish work because you are advancing science in some way, even if it is a small/incremental step.

Basically, even though you got a PhD in part through this work, it doesn't count yet from the perspective of science. You haven't advanced anything. It's basically worthless in the current form. Part of getting a PhD is producing something novel for academic knowledge, and although you've put this work into a thesis you can't expect anyone outside your committee to read the thesis.

If you have advanced the work to the point that it was submitted, I do think you should put some effort towards getting it to the next step. If the time asked is more than you can give up, I would at a minimum discuss with X what you can do to get it to where it can be handed off. That might include helping point someone to resources (including your own code, data, etc, as well as literature you've collected on the topic), or being available to answer occasional questions from a new person in the lab (especially procedural things that you may not have documented as well as you should have the first time around). It isn't clear to me that X even expects you to do all the work you are saying would be expected, it seems like you haven't discussed it yet.

It's reasonable to set limits, but I do not think academic work is the same as industry work in that once you've left the company everything is their problem. Surely if you were abused in some way or had a bad working experience in the lab, you would be justified in walking away completely, but it sounds like you had a reasonably good experience and it let to you getting a job you want.

You owe your advisor respect at this point but not specific work products. But rather than think of it as an obligation, I'm curious that you don't think of it as an opportunity. Especially if the advisor is well established and can do some things to help advance your career. In most fields collaborative work is highly regarded and you would do well, I suspect, to be drawn into his or her circle of collaboration.

You say the paper won't help advance your career, which I have a bit of trouble understanding. But that would be the only reason, IMO, to decline.

Most of us don't require specific compensation to do a bit of science, though being employed is definitely a good thing. But if it truly is outside your career goals/path, it is fine to decline, though with respect.

No, there is no such obligation. You met your requirements for the PhD, got the PhD, and moved on with your life. It is unreasonable and unethical for your advisor to "insist" that you continue to do unpaid work. You should tell him to pound sand.

As the other answerers say, it would be nice if you were willing to continue your research and get the additional publication. But that does not (correctly) answer the question of whether you have an obligation to do so. Even when you have a good experience in grad school, it is sometimes necessary to focus on new challenges rather than revisiting old ones.

Note, I am basing this partly on your statement that you would need to do major revisions and new experiments -- a substantial amount of work. If your advisor had asked for a more reasonable contribution, like helping to spin up your replacement, I would think it would be reasonable for you to comply (though whether you have an "obligation" to is another matter).

I think it's reasonable for X to ask, but you have no obligation to say "yes". In particular, 2-3 months of weekends is a lot of time to work for free. I think that if you choose, it would be reasonable for you to politely say that this is too much, and that he needs to get somebody else to do that analysis. If this is work that you have already done a lot of, you should still be an author on the resulting paper.

If your new job is with a university, then it is working asking your new supervisor if you can spend some time on it. They may be happy that they can get a paper with their affiliation for only a couple of weeks of work. If your new job is a commercial one, this is much less likely to help.

While you have no direct obligation to X keep in mind that networking is very important in academia. X is moving more to the position of a collègue in your life. Publishing may not help you directly now but it is taken into account whenever someone is assessing your potential. You are at the beginning of your career. It would seem to be worthwhile to talk to X and reach an arrangement satisfactory to both of you.