This question already has an answer here:
- When should a supervisor be an author? 8 answers
I’m a PhD student working in CS. My advisor does not understand the subject I’m working on as it’s a bit off-topic compared to the topics addressed in the lab. He does get the main idea, but does not have enough technical background to input valuable comments that could contribute to the project. Plus, he does not seem to be that much interested in the topic: I barely see him, and he does not write any papers with me. He rather waits for me to finish the paper, then reads it lazily and comes up with one or two typos and advice about putting figures in a box and such. Quite disappointing and not the kind of contributions I’d expect from a co-author!
The first time I submitted this paper, I put him as a co-author hoping that it would get him to at least try to grasp some of the technical subtleties.
Unfortunately, that didn't work.
The paper got rejected eventually and I am now working on a new improved version. But I’m considering authoring it solo this time. When I hinted at it, my advisor told me that he pays for my PhD, and that my work belongs to his institution. So this is supposedly why he should be a co-author of this paper.
Do you have any thoughts or advice about what to do? I'd also like to know if this is common in CS: Advisors neither participating in the research nor writing papers with students?