New answers tagged

0

I had a similar experience a very long time ago: I was working with what would be my Ph.D. advisor's group and this work and I did a long and involved calculation which was the major part of a paper. After I handed in the results and helped write up the paper I found out that my name was nowhere in the paper, and only got a thanks in the aknowledgement. I ...


-2

Publish the result jointly with B as planned. There is no hesitation here. If you want ethics, here's a teaching from the Bible Matthew 22:15-21: Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s. Did Researcher B contribute his value to the study? Yes, he did, according to what you said. Did Researcher B commit any crime within your joint study? ...


6

As others have noted there are some fields (and subfields) where alphabetical ordering is the standard and everyone understands, expects, and respects that. A paper with a different ordering will stand out in some way. But the solution in such a situation is to provide a short section in the paper itself, detailing the main contributions of each author. For ...


19

Speaking from a field where author lists are always alphabetical: This will do you good in the long run! If you follow this convention, you will never have to argue over authorship order - take a look at the amount of questions on this site dealing with exactly this question, and be thrilled that you have the option to simply exclude that from your life. ...


16

In the first instance, I recommend talking to the professor and respectfully asking the reason why they changed the author ordering. However, unfortunately it is completely conventional in some fields to always list authors alphabetically, meaning that if your name is at the end of the alphabet you're unlikely to ever have a first author paper (note that if ...


-4

This sucks big time. As a start, if you haven't submit the paper yet, it may not be published in 4 months, due to peer review taking usually some time, so adjust accordingly if you want to apply for a PhD soon. I am afraid there's not much I would do in your current situation rather than talk with the professor and explain what you said here. There are ...


7

Publish your contributions as separate sole author papers note this will only be possible in some scenarios, but it is important to present this option, because it is often the best one when it is possible Remove the content contributed by the offending co-author and publish the partial work without them (most likely in a lower impact journal). This may ...


10

Recommend publishing in both authors true names and modify the paper to include information to make it easier to verify the results. Make the data sets available, publish all the source code, etc. Don't hold anything back.


4

Publish under pseudonym(s) One or both of you could use pseudonyms. As with all other options, this is a compromise, but in this case you're emphasising getting the publicly funded and/or important research out there, while avoiding further association with a person you don't want to be associated with, and not allowing them further credit, while also not ...


41

I expand on a comment by Buffy where this was hinted at: It is a very different issue whether the misconduct was on the scientific level, which would cast doubt on the results, or on the social/moral level. In the first case, it is difficult to trust the results if B is on the author list. Here, we have a serious dilemma. Probably OP might want to consider ...


6

In your question you considered the pros and contras of all approaches. For example, when you considered the option not publish at all, the main counter-arguments are that Researcher A does not benefit, taxpayer's money are wasted, and community does not benefit from the results. Let me discuss them in a little more details. Taxpayers are not benefitting ...


27

Actually, you should let A know that you and the others have been working on the problem and propose that you merge into one group. If B and C haven't been productive on it, then you might want to discuss it with them first. It might be that one or both of them isn't ready for a more intensive collaboration. You can, jointly, be honest with A that your ...


8

"What should I do? I don't want to appear pretentious, or rude in front of my supervisor, but I don't think it's fair for me either. In case it's relevant my field of research is pure math." My recommendation is to accept that alphabetical authorship is the ubiquitous convention not only in pure math but also in most areas of math and computer ...


6

Let me suggest that in pure mathematics the conventions are that a student is usually permitted/encouraged to write sole author papers. And for properly done joint work, the convention is to use alphabetical order for authors. Mathematicians will understand this though people in other fields might not. But, you can also include a short "contributions&...


23

The convention in pure math is to list authors in alphabetical order. Since this is generally known inside pure math, readers will not draw any conclusions from the author order about the relative importance of contributions. In fact, my impression is that most pure mathematicians prefer to avoid discussion of relative importance of contributions altogether, ...


-2

(edit: my take from the Computer Science community) I'll start by saying that every research group has their own conventions. Some allow every member of the group to be coauthors of every paper produced within that group. Others use sophisticated systems like counting the lines of text written to establish what is the highest contributing author, then ...


4

In fields where alphabetic ordering is the norm, non-alphabetic ordering is sometimes used for indicating that the first author contributed much more. (See for example https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510032). Asking to be first author would seem reasonable in your case. This said, author ordering is a rather coarse way of indicating who did what. Some journals ...


2

In my field (physics) we put both affiliations and we do not necessarily specify which is the current one, which I guess is not very smart. This would probably be acceptable Leo Yoon$^{a,b}$ ${}^a$Previous affiliation, ${}^b$Current affiliation Email: leo.yoon@affiliation.current.edu So they know where to find you and your former institution gets proper ...


4

Tell the advisor you were pleased that the work was published and it reminded you of how much you learned from participating in the evaluation of data (or whatever you did). Reminding the advisor that you participated in the research, hopefully, will prompt the advisor to mention this in a letter of reference for you. I think it not wise to force the issue ...


13

It would of course be a tremendous feather in your cap to be a coauthor, even one of zillions, of an article in a prestigious journal. And even if not a coauthor, it is personally satisfying to be acknowledged. However, no one else pays much attention to acknowledgements. What you now need to achieve is fair recognition of your contributions in the letter of ...


42

You should ask the professor to describe your contribution to the database and the relationship between the database and the publication. No matter what the reason is that you are not an author on the publication, there is no benefit to including the reason in your letter of recommendation. A correction to the author list could benefit you, but only someone ...


31

Asking them directly to acknowledge "forgetting" you is a battle that you cannot win, I am afraid. However, if you approach this strategically, you can still probably get a letter that bears the same message as being acknowledged on the paper would. From your description it seems safe to assume that your authorship was omitted accidentally. It is a ...


4

Most of the work was done at affiliation A and your adviser for that project was at affiliation A, and now you are at affiliation B. I disagree with Buffy's answer, which is to list your affiliation as B rather than A. The most common approach is to put affiliation A with a footnote that says: "Present address: affiliation B", or to put both ...


2

Generally your affiliation is the institution with which you are currently employed or a student. University A is a "prior affiliation", unless you still have some formal relationship with them. Your dissertation/project/manuscript may need to acknowledge A for any support for research leading to a paper, but your affiliation should be B. The ...


2

It is an interesting situation. Clearly the 'authors of the code' have the copyright (and the repository shows who actually contributed). But the purpose of the code was to address a question broadly, as demonstrated by the broader group on the paper. For the purposes of a DOI (which does not indicate IP ownership on the code) I think having the same author ...


4

The criteria to be a co-author depend on the field of research and on the journal, but usually at least some intellectual contribution to the paper is expected. Most journals have a list of requirements on their website. Yes, you should talk to your supervisor: this will probably solve the problem. No, unless the code he wrote gave you important insights (...


2

Whether a review has one, two or more authors does not really matter in biochemistry, but being first author is useful, and so is a good quality paper that gets cited. It will be very helpful for your career to build a network and show your skills, and a good way to do so is to collaborate on a review. Buffy's comment is also correct: authors should ...


1

Don’t look for a co-author; look for a mentor! Other answers, such as Buffy’s, explain well why it’s generally not appropriate to recruit a co-author for this kind of thing. But I’d like to emphasise a good alternative: try to find someone experienced in the general area who can help advise you on writing the introduction. Usually, I would expect the ...


15

I suggest that rather than trying to enlist someone else as a co-author, you just do the best job you can with what you know and can learn in a reasonable amount of time. If you only have a few references, rather then 30, then so be it. If it is enough to explain what you are doing then it is probably enough. Use your professor for feedback on what you write....


9

Introductions are challenging to write. We have knowledge, but we don't also remember where we learned everything. Indeed, stare at a problem long enough, and the reasoning for solving it seems plain. But reviewers and readers want the whole background. And if you are publishing a paper, you practically by definition need to be competent to write the ...


3

Your professor will not have time to contribute substantially to the writing. You lack the expertise to write the Introduction section in an appropriate manner. This is a situation that calls for a further co-author. As GoodDeeds wrote in their comment, this is the moment to ask your professor for further help. Even if they have no time for writing ...


0

More important than who "wrote" the paper is whose research and ideas it is based on. Who is responsible for the "intellectual content" of the work. But I agree that 6th is pretty low. Some fields are fanatical about author order. But you can ask. Ask, at least, for an explanation of the author order. Maybe it is rational, maybe not. But ...


2

This does not sound anything like intellectual theft to me. It seems just as likely that your contact (the trial coordinator) did not know someone else had already planned to do the analysis you proposed (or something similar). They had a conversation with others in the group, found this is too close to something they're already doing, and have informed you ...


7

While I sympathize with your situation, I believe that you are vastly overestimating the severity of the wrong-doing by the coordinator and your former supervisor, labeling the question with tags such as plagiarism, and calling it intellectual theft in the title. It is hardly either. As I understand the situation, neither you nor your former supervisor has ...


0

Ah, the wonderful world of "coopetition" where at first you are collaborators, but actually one party was secretly treating it as a zero-sum game. However, in multi-institution collaborations, it's not uncommon for investigators to stake out turf, and all the better you know of this now rather than after you invested time beyond the developing a ...


2

Creating the graphs and tables for a paper does not necessarily entitle you to authorship (https://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf). But creating those graphs and tables nearly always requires some other activity that does entitle you to authorship. Your work should be acknowledged at a minimum. If you are entitled to ...


4

You should not agree to submission of a manuscript that includes an inaccurate author list. Your coauthors should not submit a manuscript without your permission. If they do that knowingly, you should tell the editor the manuscript was submitted without your permission. This will lead to rejection or retraction of the manuscript. You should be transparent ...


Top 50 recent answers are included