Timeline for How to explain to a student that it is common to include a supervisor as a co-author?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
26 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 15, 2018 at 23:38 | history | edited | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 15:34 | comment | added | Nick S | @gnometorule "RE: As I read the question, the advisor ..." If that is the case, then the advisor needs to convince the student that he did contribute to the paper, and in that case I agree he deserves authorship. But that is because of the contribution, not because "it is common in the field".... | |
| Sep 25, 2015 at 2:21 | history | edited | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 313 characters in body
|
| Sep 25, 2015 at 1:06 | history | edited | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
new rationale
|
| Sep 24, 2015 at 12:44 | comment | added | eykanal | Please take any extended discussion to Academia Chat. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 10:00 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @DavidRicherby: Possibly - terminology differs significantly between places. I was referring to a "university -> faculty -> institute/department [-> chair/group]" model (fictional example: "university -> faculty of CS -> institute of language input technologies -> Romance language interfaces group"), which may have been a bit confusing. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 9:25 | comment | added | David Richerby | @O.R.Mapper You seem to be using the term "head of department" to describe a PI. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 9:16 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @DavidRicherby: The head of the department (by this, I mean a professor leading a group/institute) is the one who manages the creation and submission of project grant applications, who has the last word on who to employ and whom to pay from which source, and who will defend towards funding agencies whatever his or her employees do based upon that funding. Consequently, the employees are supposed to come to some sort of an agreement with their superior concerning what to spend time on and what goals to aim for. (As pointed out by D.W., this is, however, somewhat off-topic for this question.) | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 9:02 | comment | added | David Richerby | @O.R.Mapper "the head of the department [...] [has] only contributed funding and approval for writing the paper" Huh? Most researchers are not, as I understand it, funded by their head of department. And I've never heard of anyone requiring "approval" to write a paper. | |
| Sep 24, 2015 at 4:29 | comment | added | D.W. | Folks: please avoid extended discussion and chat in comments. Comments exist only to help improve the answer. Extended discussion about some other situation or question (e.g., should department head automatically be added to papers?) has no place here. Take it to chat. Thank you! | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 23:26 | history | edited | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 198 characters in body
|
| Sep 23, 2015 at 21:39 | comment | added | JeffE | (that seems to be the convention in applied CS) — So many [citation needed]s. I have never head of such a convention, and neither has my department head. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 21:34 | comment | added | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 21:31 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @TheDoctor: Maybe you misunderstood that, but I'm not talking about "cow-towing" to anyone. The described listing of the department head is the standard procedure by convention; it is what is perceived as proper conduct in the field, what is conveyed to new beginners as the right thing to do, and what is applied as background knowledge when reading papers by others ("If you have an inquiry, never write to the last author, because they are most likely just the department head without any connection to the paper."). There are no concerns to raise because it's perceived as a functioning system. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 21:26 | comment | added | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | @O.R.Mapper: Doctoral candidates should raise their concerns but generally follow their department's advice since they are dependent upon them. But postdocs should not cow-tow to department heads throwing their weight around. Like I said this is where you prove your chops as a PhD, or you fail at your University locally, to succeed on principles which should serve you in the larger academic sphere. But, hey, I'm outside the Establishment, so I can talk lofty ideals. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 21:19 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @TheDoctor: "As a doctor, you don't have to wait for someone else to give you approval" - I have experienced this very differently. Both doctoral candidates and postdocs are supposed to independently choose and manage their research, but at the same time, both are employees of a department paid from the department's funds and thus are not supposed to "wander off" into arbitrary directions without a basic approval of their respective superior. (The superior, of course, is also bound to some extent as each department is run by the university with certain (albeit vaguely-defined) goals in mind). | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:53 | comment | added | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | @O.R.Mapper: Ah, excellent question! This is where you cut your chops as a PhD. As a doctor, you don't have to wait for someone else to give you approval -- it should be considered a field of equal individuals. The fact that there are dept heads and such are operational conveniences. Outside that, is a matter of EARNED respect. Requirements as you mention may be power plays or stale conventions. So what you do, is take their suggestion under advisement, and do something better. A footnote: "Funding provided by: University of Proper Manners", or such. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:47 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | @TheDoctor: This leads to a related question (that maybe should be asked as a separate Academia SE question): When the system "add the head of the department as an author even though they have only contributed funding and approval for writing the paper, without ever seeing the paper themselves up to the last day before submission" (that seems to be the convention in applied CS) has been flawlessly used with the submission guidelines as they are for several decades, producing thousands of papers, how to convince anyone that anything needs to be changed at all? | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:41 | comment | added | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | @O.R.Mapper: Then this is a weakness within the submission guidelines, the system, or both. The effort to fix this may be larger than the field knows how to fix -- but it is something every department can sympathize with. I would suggest working within Library Sciences, since there is no over-arching body within academia itself that could consult on it or establish authority on fixing it. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:38 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | "Clara Smith; advisor: Dr. Herbert Norig" - depending on the field, this clashes with styleguide requirements for the paper, and it isn't possible to input such information in a fixed-structure form for meta-information in the submission system, either. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:26 | comment | added | gnometorule | @Strongbad: As I read the question, the advisor reads the paper, puts it in perspective ("its contribution (to the field)"), and edits it ensuring or increasing the likelihood of publication. In my eyes, that's quite a contribution. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:24 | comment | added | StrongBad | @gnometorule yes, the PI is often included in neuroscience because they make a substantial contribution even if the student doesn'the realize it. In this case the PI is saying he does not make a contribution. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:14 | comment | added | StrongBad | @gnometorule in my experience therr is a push in neuroscience to stand by the ICMJE guidelines. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:13 | comment | added | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | I'm not saying there aren't some fields where this hasn't been established as a convention. I'm saying as an administrator, this is the wrong way to go about this. While the neuroscience field may have adjusted to this partial solution, other fields won't know what you mean. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 20:04 | comment | added | gnometorule | This is simply not true in some fields. As also mentioned in the linked question, in neuroscience, say, you always mention the lab's PI as Last Author (papers commonly have 3-5 authors). The PI likely contributed not only by providing funding, but in exactly the way described in the question: discussing, and helping to edit and get the paper into a publishable shape. But in any case they will be Last Author. | |
| Sep 23, 2015 at 19:59 | history | answered | Mark Rosenblitt-Janssen | CC BY-SA 3.0 |