How to explain to a student that it is common to include a supervisor as a co-author?

Question

In my field of research, it is common to include a supervisor as a co-author of a student's PhD research related papers. A supervisor mainly contributes by helping to improve the writing of a paper, such as emphasising its contribution or clarifying the content, etc. Which means that a supervisor does not contribute anything directly related to the research carried out in a paper, for instance, a supervisor may not even understand a method used in a paper.

Based on all the answers of this question, it is clear this custom is not applied to all fields, and I am not trying to argue if it is correct to do so or not.

I want to know how a supervisor explains to a new PhD student that he/she should include a supervisor's name in his/her papers. What happens if a student refuses to follow a custom?

PS: when I started my PhD, I already knew about this custom, so my supervisor did not need to explain it to me. But how about those that don't know or know differently?

Answer 1

If the student truly is writing a paper independently of the advisor, then the advisor shouldn't be a coauthor and it would be inappropriate for the advisor to demand this.

In the more usual situation in which the advisor provides the the dissertation topic and works directly with the student in developing the dissertation (holding regular meetings, reviewing drafts of the thesis, meeting with the dissertation committee) and then papers based on the dissertation are published, the participation of the advisor would normally merit coauthorship. In these situations the authorship of papers should be settled before the research work begins.

I make it a point to explain this to students before starting work with them on their theses and dissertations. I simply wouldn't agree to supervise a student who would not agree to sharing authorship in this way.

Answer 2

To an outsider, this sounds very much like gift authorship. It is likely that a student could come back with examples where what you are suggesting is considered academic misconduct. The only way I think you could convince the student is if you can provide a written policy from a relevant journal or professional body.

Answer 3

Instead of insisting to be named "just because you are the supervisor", I suggest that as the supervisor, it is your role to be sufficiently involved in the research of your students that you qualify for authorship "the conventional way" (for your contribution to the paper).

In other words - do the job of supervisor properly, and there will be no argument over your co-authorship. And if you really do the job properly, your student will eventually be able to write papers on which you will not be listed as author - and you should be proud when that moment comes instead of mourning a lost citation.

Answer 4

This is pretty common in computer science. You may be underestimating your contribution as an advisor. I assume it goes further than just grammatical editing of the paper. In my experience, my advisor's contributions were:

• Setting the overall direction of my research
• Providing (access to) equipment used in the research
• Finding relevant related work based on his experience
• Having regular meetings during the research to discuss progress, what to do next, how to tackle problems and so on.
• Discussing how best to present the results and helping decide where to publish
• Providing basic assistance with actually writing the paper including writing some introductory text, reviewing, proofreading, etc.

Based on my interaction with other PhD students, this was the common pattern, and it was very rare for the advisor not to be listed as the last author on the paper.

Answer 5

I want to know how a supervisor explains to a new PhD student that he/she should include a supervisor's name in his/her papers. What happens if a student refuses to follow a custom?

You seem to be trying to push them into putting you as a coauthor, just because [of a custom], which may make the student more likely to think you are trying to take advantage of them - which is how it would be viewed in other fields.

If this is as customary as you say, it might give them a bad image to peers or other people in the field when looking for help or advice.

If you feel that you deserve to be put as a co-author, other than because of the custom, why is that? That is what the student needs to hear if they are going to do it.

• Possibility 1: You've had a great deal of input on the paper, enough to warrant co-authorship and the student doesn't acknowledge this. Point out the things in the paper that you've had a hand in changing or adding. Point out that if you were to ask them to remove anything added by you, they would not have a paper. Try referring them to another peer about it. If they still decide to ignore you, they clearly don't need any out-of-the-way input from you in the future and you should better indicate what you expect from the student when you first agree to be their supervisor.

• Possibility 2: You've had very little, if any, impact on the paper. The student doesn't acknowledge the custom. If you would expect that it would be best, for the student, to follow the custom then explain why that is. It could be that future potential coauthors might not trust them or that it might be a start to a poor reputation. Looking from the student's, and even some outsiders, perspective it seems like you are taking advantage of them. They might not trust anything you say, especially as empty as "your reputation may suffer". You might have to refer them to ask about it to another person on the faculty. With more people agreeing, it becomes a little more trustworthy. If they still decide to ignore you, then at least you tried - they'll just have to live with the consequences.

Answer 6

I took the liberty to peruse your SE profile and history. You strike me as an honest researcher who is interested in an academic career, but is nonetheless frequently troubled by doubts and anxiety about your publication record, leading you to post here many questions about ethically questionable practices (in a few cases involving a hypothetical "researcher in your lab"). In addition to the current question, to which I've already posted an answer of sorts in the comments section, some examples I spotted at a glance are:

• Is it common to claim co-authorship by helping writing a paper without doing any research

• Should I repeat experiment affected by external factors until achieving consistent result

• Should I inform other project's members about my work on an idea which they are not initially interested in

• How does supervisor contribute to students' papers

Several of your other questions (e.g., this one and this one) do not seem especially problematic from an ethical point of view but still point to signs of your wish to bolster your publication record and academic success through strategic means that are tangential to just working hard and being talented.

I must say this pattern is beginning to seem alarming. I will try to be as non-judgmental as I possibly can (among other reasons because I feel your presence on Academia SE and the discussions you raise are actually very valuable) when I say that I think your preoccupation with publications, and particularly your tendency to imagine "easy" and often unethical or borderline ethical solutions to the problem of acquiring a good publication record, is excessive, unproductive, and harmful to you and to your future. The simple truth is that no amount of scheming to add your name to yet another publication will earn you the respect and credibility that you crave as a genuine researcher who works hard and comes up with new and innovative ideas. Only actual hard work can get you that. All the energy and thought that you are devoting to publications, which are just the superficial outward representation of the work scientists do, is to me a sign that you lack passion about the science and the work itself. Without that passion, I am sorry to say you will never make it very far in academia. And without honesty and integrity you will never make it very far anywhere.

Answer 7

As I have noted on other occasions, the style/convention in mathematics, at least in my part of that world, is that advisors rarely, if ever, have, or insist upon, or accept, co-authorship of any sort involving their students' theses and related publications. In recent years I have seen a few examples, but this already surprised me.

That is, in my experience, in the best situations, and barring a handful of truly exceptional students, of course the advisor had a very good idea of how things should go, knew the key background, knew the pitfalls, and most likely could have written the thing up in an afternoon if they had nothing better to do, but they did have better things to do.

It did take me some time to fully understand the extent to which this is true in my field... since I, too, had bought into the mythology that beginners can become experts within a few months or a year or two, thus "bearding" their advisors. Well, I don't think that really happens in the way novices, especially, seem to want to believe. That is, an experienced expert can "catch on" soooo quickly to new facts that they operationally nearly-instantly assimilate that information, and integrate it with previous. And, unlike the novice, the expert can often see implications far in the distance.

So, again, in the part of the math biz within my view, of course the advisor has made a significant contribution... and, of course, there's no point in making the student "acknowledge" this by giving up some publication credit. Indeed, it seems that if a thesis gets published with advisor as co-author in math, it suggests that the student really didn't do much work at all, and is being dinged for that.

I am fairly consistently amazed at the seemingly-popular notion that some PhDs are done "independently" of advisors. Sure, some advisors may be technically incompetent... but how does a novice do something worthwhile that experienced experts would have wanted to do, but tried and failed? Does one have to be "The Chosen One" to do a PhD? Or are some fields so shallow that complete inexperience, or two months' experience, really makes an expert? Or is that merely a popular myth here, as well as elsewhere?

And, back to the original question, and as in other answers: don't try to coerce people to do things you cannot happily defend. Further, do not pretend that beginners are or should be on the same playing field as seasoned experts, nor that the experts should always "be sure" to grab credit for every little thing their apprentices manage to do under their guidance.

Answer 8

My take is that convention is not enough. Explaining to your students the authorship standards for your field is essentially, but once that's done, whether or not a supervisor is an author should flow naturally from those standards. And as a supervisor, you should definitely be more involved in a paper than just helping improve the writing - that makes you a proofreader, not a PhD supervisor. Either you are underestimating your contribution, or something else is wrong.

As a single point of data, in my field, "Which means that a supervisor does not contribute anything directly related to a research carried in a paper, for instance, a supervisor may not even understand a method used in a paper" and still claiming to be an author would involve lying on several journal submission forms.

Of the work that came out of my PhD, my advisor was only present on 50% of the papers, by his own request.

Answer 9

Point to the Authorship Guidelines for the journal to which the paper is going to be submitted. If your contribution warrants authorship according to those guidelines then point this out to the student. If the guidelines do not indicate that you contribution warrants co-authoriship then you should not ask the student for co-authoriship.

Answer 10

Which means that a supervisor does not contribute anything directly related to a research carried in a paper, for instance, a supervisor may not even understand a method used in a paper.

When the result is incomprehensible to someone experienced in the field, either the paper is bad (and it is the duty of a supervisor to make the author amend it) or the supervisor does not even invest the amount of work expected from the typical recipient of the paper, let alone a coauthor.

I have little problem with supervisors tending to be in a relation of coauthorship. But if they are neither actually being coauthors nor supervisors, this is stretching it.

Answer 11

This is the wrong way to go about this. If there is no direct contribution, then you don't include the supervisor as author. The proper thing to do is establish a convention for proper mention -- much like you do when referencing the work of another. The business sector has established conventions for just these sort of things which can be used as a guideline (like when a secretary is dictated a letter vs. writes her own letter under a boss`s name).

For example, the author line could say "Clara Smith; advisor: Dr. Herbert Norig" or something to that effect.

In any case, you don't want to dilute the notion of authorship just so department heads can get free citation points.

[Edit: Strangely my answer is voted down even though there is a strong vote in support of the general ideas expressed here (where it was the first A to the Q) in the form of other answers and the form of a highly-voted comment under the question itself, suggesting agreement. A question perhaps for meta...]

Answer 12

I'd say it's pretty simple - but not quite what you seem to be expecting:

1. People who contribute significantly to a paper must be listed as authors.
2. Explain point (1.) to your student.
3. If it's a paper in which he's doing the write-up, leave it up to him to decide who gets put on the author list.

What happens if he doesn't name you? Then, well, he's either a person of questionable character, or he's obtuse, or maybe you haven't actually contributed enough.