How to deal with co-supervisor that does not contribute but requires coauthorship?

Question

I'm a PhD student with two supervisors, one main PI which I has nothing to complain about, and a "co-supervisor" that had a long history with my PI. He was my PI's student, then post-doc, then worked in industry for years and came back as an assistant professor.

I barely talk to the co-supervisor beyond first year, and started to notice he puts in minimal effort into research and supervison - only giving wording suggestions when reviewing papers, doesn't providing anything more than "Have you tried AI?" or "What's your plan in 3 years" kind of feedback.

Other students are complaining about him being very pushy on publishing and cares much more about quantity than quality - suggested another student to submit to an irrevalent journal because it is "faster" when the student is aiming for the best in the sub-field.

All in all, I think he is much suited as a manager in industry or a lecturer than a researcher. However, because of the co-supervision title, he asks to review all my papers and becomes a coauthor by providing feedback that are exactly the same as the ones Grammarly provided (and I meant not similar but word-to-word the same as Grammarly and nothing else).

I realize it is academic dishonesty to let someone that didn't contribute to be a coauthor, but I'm not ready to be on the bad side of him, and potentially my own PI, this early on, especially considering I hope to go into academia after. I'm thinking about talking to the department chair, whom I trust, privately after graduation, which will hopefully be taken into account to some degree during his tenure review. Is there anything else I can do in this situation? Am I wrong to think he is a fraud?

Answer 1

You "hope to go into academia after." - So be glad that you are learning early on what academia is like.

"Am I wrong to think he is a fraud?" - Possibly not. Possibly it's more nuanced. You are not in a position to make a definitive judgement.

"I realize it is academic dishonesty" - A big word. I appreciate your ethical motivation to stand up against such scandal. Nobody will disagree that we must combat fraud and dishonesty. None of the adults in the game, however, will admit to you that this friendly and helpful person in their very own department is a fraud and living of dishonesty. Keep in mind that you don't have the full picture and that your own judgement might be more differentiated in a few years from now.

"I'm thinking about talking ... privately after graduation" - That is not very courageous. If the situation is making you unhappy then seek clarification now, not at the end of your PhD.

"I'm thinking talking to the department chair" - And why not to your supervisor? You need to discuss the author byline of your papers anyway with him, preferably before writing the first line of text.

"... which will hopefully be taken into account ... during his tenure review." - Not your business. Academia is as hopeless a swamp as society at large. Work your way up, remain a honest person, become respected in your field - then you will be in a position to make your modest but efficient contribution to fairness in research.

Also to consider: your merit in your publications is not diminished by a larger number of coauthors. Don't overestimate the importance of the publishing game. In the end, it's your research results that count. And hopefully, it's research that is attracting you into acedemia, not the reporting of research.