Co-authors decided to remove most of my contributions from a Nature paper without my consent
First, take the time to carefully consider your options.
From your description the problem looks like a disagreement between co-authors: the behaviour of the corresponding author is careless and disrespectful, but it doesn't look like a major breach of ethics. Turning this into a legal battle might cause a lot of trouble, especially in a large multidisciplinary project. This could damage your reputation.
This is why I would suggest a more subtle approach first:
- Ask your co-authors why the article has been shortened and why your parts have been removed.
- Try to negotiate with them: explain why you think some parts you wrote are really important and should be added back
- If this does not work or if too much of your work has to be removed, ask to use your contribution to write another paper for a different journal/conference. This time you would be the main author and present your work as you see fit. Your co-authors can hardly refuse this to you after cutting your part.
I partially agree with Peter K.’s answer: contacting the editor is one way to proceed, although admittedly it’s a somewhat drastic step, and you might want to consider more gentle approaches first. A respectable journal will be very cautious about publishing work with controversial authorship, so at the very least this could buy you some time to try to resolve the situation. It’s possible that the journal will also actively help to establish the facts and mediate the dispute, although I’m less certain about that part.
With that being said, I think before you start throwing around accusations of “illegal”, or even just unethical or inappropriate, behavior, you need to think carefully about the logical basis for your argument. From your description of the situation I’m actually not sure you have a strong case, although your collaborators’ behavior may reasonably be seen as nasty or uncollegial. What I’m understanding, roughly, is that the project has two parts, one (let’s call it “part A”) that was the work of the collaborators, and another, let’s call it “part B”, which was your work. The plan was originally to publish both parts together, but now the collaborators decided that they only want to publish part A. Well, I’m afraid you can’t force someone to associate their name to a work they don’t want to be associated with, so although you are understandably upset about the removal of part B, personally I think the collaborators are within their rights to remove it and tell you you’ll have to publish it on your own if you want to see it published. The real question, and the one I’d advise you to focus your argument on, is your authorship on the new version of the paper that only contains part A. If they put you in an inferior place on the author list relative to where you feel you deserve to be, that’s something you should discuss with them.
Anyway, good luck.
Edit: on further rereading of your question I am slightly confused about the precise events here. Are you still a coauthor or the shorter paper? Are you still one of the first authors? Are you complaining about anything other than the removal of part B? Did the collaborators get your approval to submit the shorter paper with your name as a coauthor? If they didn’t, that would be a legitimate thing to complain about, but if the shorter paper was indeed accepted to Nature, I would tend to agree with Wolfgang Bangerth that they might have actually done you a big favor - the longer paper might well have ended up not being accepted, and now you get a publication in Nature and an opportunity to publish another, separate paper as sole author.
I am adding a short answer based on your updated question, now containing all key points.
I agree with you in that it must be infuriating to see 5-years-worth of your time flushed down by your colleagues behind your back. I have worked in such a group setting, in a highly competitive institution. I had colleagues in similar situations. Years of dedication and long meetings, lab work, learning, dedication, and the feeling that you don't relate with the final outcome.
If you want to fight this battle, I believe others have provided you all relevant advice here. I just want to tell you what I'd do.
Your feelings are justified, but: (i) this is how ambitious institutions work, most of the time, and you cannot change that; (ii) working in a production line is frustrating as compared to the artisan's life, however it is favored by modern society (read Karl Marx on this); (iii) as others say, you'll end up with a nice publication on your CV and apparently the freedom to reorganize your data for another subsequent publication; (iv) modern academia is mostly about prestigious authorships and not quite about morals/personal values/human development; (v) any serious players involved will crush anyone standing between them and some "Nature" paper.
You are worried about justifying your contract time based on your publication outcome. Well, if you fight this war you'll finish your contract with no paper, and the accusation of being a troublemaker. Also I believe you're exaggerating this issue: likely you'll have enough justification as long as you don't mess things up (which you're considering doing right now). I therefore suggest you accept their conditions, finish your contract, take some time off, and then come back to your own work and objectives.
Drink this poison, digest it later. Good luck.