I have seen several questions on this site which suggest that there are (presumably and hopefully rare) occasions where an advisor seeks to publish work as the sole author on a collaborative project that they are working on with their advisees.
Some questions which highlight these occurrences:
- My advisor submitted a paper with my work without including me as an author
- what do you do if your PhD advisor publishes a solo paper on your topic?
While there has been some discussion on this site (e.g., here) about whether the advisor should be listed as a co-author on a student's paper, in my field (in the U.S.), it is common for the advisor to be listed as a co-author on their student's papers. So, I'm writing this question to come to some understanding of the "opposite" problem:
When it (rarely) occurs, what are the benefits for an advisor to seek sole authorship when their advisees deserve to be listed as co-authors?
In my (admittedly naive) view, it would seem that the advisor would benefit more from co-authoring papers with their advisees than trying to pass the work off as their own, if nothing more than to show (to, e.g., tenure/promotion committees) that they are actively engaging their student researchers in the research activities of the group. Perhaps an element of "ego trip" is involved here as well, but I wonder if I'm missing something more fundamental as to why this happens on those rare occasions.
Edited to add — I certainly do appreciate that there is variability in the ways that different departments/institutions in different parts of the world do things, and am attempting to gain some understanding about the not-so-obvious (from my perspective) motivators that lead an advisor down the road to the aforementioned behavior.