I posted a month ago sharing conflicts that I had with my retired co-advisor about an article. This article was the remaining piece left to complete the basic requirements to acquire my PhD.
This article was based on my retired co-advisor (who recruited me)'s idea and she also suggested the journal. However, we had a mutual understanding that if I were to write it, I would need active help in regards to a part of the methodology (statistics). My supervisor kept delaying her help and eventually admitted that she wasn't strong enough in statistics to help me. She suggested withdrawing the paper. Instead (and with the concurrence of the graduate director), I worked with some other acquaintances to add the necessary statistical rigor on my own. I eventually submitted a revised version of the paper.
However, I did not send the last version to my retired co-advisor who is a co-author (and the other co-author). I now understand it was a great mistake and I own it. I received a message from the journal's editor-in-chief who said that they have been notified that both co-authors were not aware of the last version and to immediately send them written confirmations that both co-authors consented (or not) to the last version. With some delay (yes my retired co-supervisor and I are not on great terms), I asked both co-authors for their consent, they did give it, and I sent these proofs to the journal.
Result: Rejected.
The reason given: there is no proof that the co-authors have participated in the last version even if we have received their written consent for co-authorship and therefore this may be classified as a "gift co-authorship".
"Comment to Authors" letter directly from the Journal:
We believe that your manuscript has been improved and reached a level of near completeness [sic] as a work of research
Also, the suggestion to resubmit once the co-authorship issue has been resolved" is included right after.
Do you think it is a good idea to re-submit my manuscript or should I just give up on my PhD because of my conflict with the retired co-advisor? Or should I give up on this article?