RGM wrote:This statement makes no sense " At the end of these 3 months, my PI told me to do more experiments to add to the paper, which I did, as I agreed that they would help the paper, but at the same time I felt they weren't really necessary. "
Would you elaborate on this? Was there confusion between you and your PI on this too??
After I finished the experiments I expected to report on in my paper, I wrote up a draft and sent it to my PI. He made a couple revisions on the draft and we passed the draft back and forth a couple times. After the third time, he got a new idea for something to add to the paper and told me to do these new expts. Like I said, I think they were nice expts but unnecessary. We had actually discussed a similar idea a while back but at that time figured the expt wouldn't be worthwhile. I was frustrated because it further delayed publishing and because the suggestion would have come months earlier had he read more deeply into the paper the first time.
There is a chance that he will do this again, unfortunately, since he said he is thinking about New expts lately to add to the paper and furthermore admitted he has forgotten some of the changes he has already made and so might make revisions I have already fielded on earlier drafts. I will object strongly to this as the paper is already very thorough and will very likely get accepted as is but, as was my intent from asking here, I am looking for strategies for how to approach this situation in a positive way and/or new ways to go about reviewing a paper.
I hope this clarified, thanks again