I am now in another lab now, different from my PhD studies, as a post doc.

We had a review paper in which we included a figure from my thesis, without analyzed or even concentrate the paper to this figure, since it is very common. This figure was included in one of the 10+ topics discussed in this review. Should the authors include the supervisor of my ex-laboratory, as author or could just declare the laboratory and the name of my ex- supervisor to the acknowledgments, where they could thank him personally, as well as his laboratory? (my ex supervisor has not contributed in writing of the review).

  • You should list what field you are working in, because this is very field dependent. In areas like mathematics it is completely unheard of to even consider putting someone's name on a paper that they contributed nothing to. – Artem Kaznatcheev Dec 13 '13 at 1:27

I would say that only citing him would be enough. My field is cognitive neuroscience, yours might have different rules. I was in the opposite situation, a figure from one of my papers was included in a review where my supervisor was one of the authors. When they described the figure they cited my paper. A citation is quite a nice thing to have, especially in a review.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.