Hey /sci/
I currently converting my master’s thesis to a paper that my supervisor and I are trying to get published. He thinks that the results are excellent and it’s well worth pursuing. I am far more familiar with the data however, I know for a fact that it’s really poor in terms on the amount of data I gathered, and it looks to me like the main result obtained is just a statistical / methodological artifact.

I’m worried that it will ruin his reputation if we go ahead and publish with him as a co-author since I really do think it’s a crock of shit, and the only reason he’s so enthusiastic is because he has no idea about the whole picture. Yet, I also don’t want to raise my concerns since this is probably my only path to a PhD.
Anyone have any similar experiences?