... so I've begun writing a new manuscript. We have a number of additional collaborators that we generally would not have, so I decided to, before I started my outline of the manuscript, email everyone and ask how they envisioned this manuscript taking shape. I detailed where I was thinking I'd take the manuscript (in philosophical terms ... not vacation destinations). I went so far as to let them know of the journal it was going to, and that I had already talked to the editor-in-chief of the journal about this manuscript (which is somewhat off the beaten path of what they routinely deal with) and that he was extremely receptive to this article.
I figured this was a nice courtesy email, and didn't expect much fallout from it. Yah, I was stupid. Turns out that everyone else has their own idea on the path this manuscript should take, and while some parallel my own ideas, the heaviest hitter on this manuscript (other than the one who is writing it, moi) is the most esteemed member of the group. So ... what to do? I can certainly see their point of view, but the approach they want me to take (and which other people have fallen in line with now), while it is the safe approach, does not bring the problems I wish to address front and center. It's not that I'm intending on making a huge splash with this paper, though if it happens to partly revolutionize the field I'll gladly take as much credit as people are willing to give me, but I really hate beating around the bush. My collaborators are much more conservative, thinking that you don't upset the status quo, you go for the sure bet, you play it safe, you don't fight the reviewers, you get results, and you accept it and be happy about it. With most publications, I'm happy to take that course of action. I did not want to take that action with this manuscript. Bollocks.