next »

[geoprof]

I've recently run into an issue with a former supervisor that got me re-evaluating my criteria for listing someone as a co-author on a paper. I'm interested in opinions on when, if ever, a "courtesy authorship" (the person hasn't really contributed anything substantial) is appropriate. Thoughts?

[case_insensitive]

I've recently run into an issue with a former supervisor that got me re-evaluating my criteria for listing someone as a co-author on a paper. I'm interested in opinions on when, if ever, a "courtesy authorship" (the person hasn't really contributed anything substantial) is appropriate. Thoughts?

Never.

If they haven't contributed, then they aren't a co-author.

I have had co-authors who didn't contribute a HUGE amount, but never one who didn't contribute anything.

[psychle]

I'm interested in opinions on when, if ever, a "courtesy authorship" (the person hasn't really contributed anything substantial) is appropriate. Thoughts?

Never.

I agree with ci. A person should only be listed as a co-author if he or she has contributed to the project in a meaningful way.

A while ago, a frequent co-author of mine offered me second-authorship on a paper for which I had contributed nothing. His rationale was that the ideas in the paper were based on a conceptual framework that we had worked on together for a different paper, so I had contributed at a theoretical level. However, this justification didn't satisfy my personal ethics, so I turned him down.

[untenured]

What advantage does the sole author gain from attaching a second author to the piece?  Is it an effort to enhace prestige of the paper through the reflected prestige of the second author?

Untenured

[psychle]

What advantage does the sole author gain from attaching a second author to the piece?  Is it an effort to enhace prestige of the paper through the reflected prestige of the second author?

For the situation I described above, the answer is definitely "no" because I lack prestige.

[smbriver]

I'm interested in opinions on when, if ever, a "courtesy authorship" (the person hasn't really contributed anything substantial) is appropriate.

Never.

[adhoc]

I've recently run into an issue with a former supervisor that got me re-evaluating my criteria for listing someone as a co-author on a paper. I'm interested in opinions on when, if ever, a "courtesy authorship" (the person hasn't really contributed anything substantial) is appropriate. Thoughts?

I agree with most of what has already been said regarding the inclusion of an "author" who has not contributed to the paper. 

But ...  Your question is phrased in a way that causes me to wonder if there is perhaps something more to it.  Specifically, is your "former supervisor" your advisor and is the "issue" into which you have recently run your advisor's idea that s/he should be included as an author on papers originating from your dissertation?

If not, that is if I am completely off base, then never mind.  On the other hand, if I am right, then you absolutely should include your advisor as a second author.

[cogscientist]

What advantage does the sole author gain from attaching a second author to the piece?  Is it an effort to enhace prestige of the paper through the reflected prestige of the second author?

Well, the second author is likely to reciprocate, is hu not? Then both authors double their "productivity."

That, or the second author has some degree of local power hu will use to reward the first author.

[cardiackid]

Never.  Read up on the authorship policies of the journal as well as your institution (if it is prescient to have one).

[case_insensitive]

Well, the second author is likely to reciprocate, is hu not? Then both authors double their "productivity."

That, or the second author has some degree of local power hu will use to reward the first author.

Ethical?

[cogscientist]

Well, the second author is likely to reciprocate, is hu not? Then both authors double their "productivity."

That, or the second author has some degree of local power hu will use to reward the first author.

Ethical?

Oh, certainly not! I was just trying to answer Untenured's question about why people would do such a thing as adding a courtesy author. I am not condoning it.

[geoprof]

Thanks for all the responses. This person is a former postdoc supervisor. Hu hasn't contributed *nothing* but hu's contributions were definitely minimal ('nothing substantial' in my original post), in my opinion.

I don't want this person on my paper. I couldn't care less about enhancing the prestige of the paper or sucking up to hu or angling for favors/reciprocity from hu. But hu feels hu contributed, and I want to be fair. So what (in people's opinions/experience) is the absolute minimum contribution, in practical terms, necessary for ethical (non-courtesy) co-authorship?

[psychle]

In psychology, people tend to go by the guidelines set by the APA:

"Authorship is reserved for people who make a primary contribution to and hold primary responsibility for the data, concepts, and interpretation of results for a published work... Authorship encompasses not only those who do the actual writing but also those who have made substantial scientific contributions to a study." (APA publication manual, 5th ed., p. 6)

[psychle]

Thanks for all the responses. This person is a former postdoc supervisor. Hu hasn't contributed *nothing* but hu's contributions were definitely minimal ('nothing substantial' in my original post), in my opinion.

I don't want this person on my paper. I couldn't care less about enhancing the prestige of the paper or sucking up to hu or angling for favors/reciprocity from hu. But hu feels hu contributed, and I want to be fair. So what (in people's opinions/experience) is the absolute minimum contribution, in practical terms, necessary for ethical (non-courtesy) co-authorship?

Can you indicate what these minimal contributions were? (e.g., motivation for the study, experimental design, data collection and/or analysis, interpretation, etc.)

[prof_mom]

If the person believes they have done enough to warrant authorship, then you have a problem.

You should write down what you believe they did to contribute and have this person write down what hu believes hu did to contribute. Then you have a point of comparison and can use the appropriate guidelines to determine authorship (such as the APA guide given above). I have seen situations where one person thinks they did more than the other person is giving them credit for and this process of expressing perceived contribution can work out any misunderstandings.

Another option is to acknowledge their assistance in the author's note.