I'd like to write a scientific article from my master's thesis. My supervisor offered to collaborate on this, and become co-author. I would answer positively if it wasn't for the following considerations:
- he wants to target journals of a certain level, and I don't think my work is up to these standards (yet?)
- this is mostly because of two weak points in the actual content of my work. Improving these two weak spots will require a very significant effort: doing new research, learning new topics, writing more arguments...
- I would like this article to be published quickly, to take advantage from it in my early career life. The journals of my supervisor take many months (sometimes a year) to have the work published. This is incompatible with my timeline
- and sincerely I am okay with the work as is, with its weaknesses. I don't want to put new research effort into it.
I'm not entirely sure what his opinion on it is, on the two weak points for instance. I know that he thinks it's suitable for a publication. I also don't know in advance what his specific plans for the paper are (only shortening and rewriting? Adding more content? Fixing the weak spots?).
I would therefore like to ask for a meeting, and tell him about my concerns, before confirming I want him to work with me on the paper. In particular that I don't want to put the effort required to fix the two major issues, and something about my timeline. And gather his opinion on those issues too. Maybe they're not such a problem as I imagine.
As for me I am working full time, and I'm not in academia anymore. But I might return there. I'd be writing this paper during weekday evenings.
Is this something sensible to tell my supervisor?