next »

[athena1]

I have given co-authorship to others who have helped with the research in some way, though they may not have written the actual manuscript. For example: students who contributed to a significant portion of the data collection, colleagues who assisted in designing the study and did final edits, and colleagues who just did final edits b/c I wanted their input.

[case_insensitive]

I have given co-authorship to others who have helped with the research in some way, though they may not have written the actual manuscript. For example: students who contributed to a significant portion of the data collection, colleagues who assisted in designing the study and did final edits, and colleagues who just did final edits b/c I wanted their input.

I think that is reasonable.

[infopri]

I think prof_mom's response is right on target.

In my very first semester as a doctoral student, I worked with two faculty and several other students on a fairly prestigious commissioned study.  We all did parts of the data collection and analysis and the writing, although a few did lots more than the rest of us.  The authors of our preliminary and final reports were listed with the two faculty first, then all the students, with each group in alpha order.  My last name is near the end of the alphabet, but I didn't mind that my name was last in the author list because my contribution (me being such a newbie) was fairly small.  Some months later, the PI (one of the two faculty) and one of the students rewrote the lengthy report into a much shorter conference paper, and all of our names appeared on it, even though Prof and TopStudent did all the work on the paper.  When I objected (none of my writing and little of my analysis made it into the conference paper), I was reassured that the conference paper reflected the original work, to which I had (in my own tiny way) contributed.  I was happy (what first-year doctoral student doesn't want something additional to put on the CV?), but my happiness felt undeserved. 

Geoprof, I'm generally with the "never" group when it comes to courtesy authorships, but you acknowledge that your postdoc supervisor did contribute something, even if it was minimal.  If the exercise prof_mom proposed demonstrates that hu deserves some sort of credit, and you don't want hu's name on the paper, I really like the idea of the author's note.  Those don't get cataloged in databases.  :)   If the postdoc supervisor won't settle for that, then there might be a middle ground, sort of "junior" co-authorship.  I don't mean simply that you get lead-author status.  True co-authorship would say something like "Geoprof, I.M. and Supervisor, F.U."  What I'm thinking is something more along the lines of "Geoprof, I.M., with assistance from Supervisor, F.U."  That kind of credit may have to be negotiated with your publication outlet, but I have seen that wording on articles.

[cogscientist]

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?

If you former postdoc advisor thinks hu contributed, I do not see that you have any choice but to put hus name on the paper. Really. Whatever you might privately think about it, whatever you think is fair. Look, that person will never admit hu tried to get a free paper from you, so what is going to happen if you deny hu authorship is that hu will say horrible things about you to everyone of hus buddies at every opportunity. I've seen that happening, and it was ugly. Do not let that happen to you. Do no let things escalate. No single-authored paper is worth that.

[pyshnov]

One must be able to judge if the contribution of another was substantial. If without this contribution the paper would look differently, it was a substantial one. I mean if there would be any difference. I think, it is not difficult for the author to find out.

More difficult is to decide whether it should be a co-authorship or acknowledgement of particular contribution. The acknowledgement must be precise, very specific. But, if you have difficulty to make it absolutely specific, then you have no choice but to make it co-authorship.

[pyshnov]

Continuing my thoughts...

There is often the case when someone (supervisor) made in the past a contribution to the general direction of your research, and you had published paper(s) together. If your new paper in any way continuing in this line of research, the appropriate way is to mention old paper in the text and to give the reference; no acknowledgement if no contribution to the present paper.

In no case the acknowledgement should be like "I (we) thank .... for his/her ideas". This means nothing, and the reader should think of such acknowledgement as either (a) purely a courtesy in the absence of any contribution, (b) desire to gain favor with a powerful figure, or (c) a fraud when the person thanked is the real author but you are stealing the research and cover the theft with "acknowledgement". With the help of such "acknowledgement", the (c) trick, my research of 5 years was stolen by my supervisor.

Always ask yourself what the reader will think about who did what in your paper. This is the only test.

Unfortunately, the existing rules are written and propagated by people who are bureaucrats in this business, and not very wise ones. These people only care about exonerating journal editors from any responsibility in case of conflict. And, their rules in most cases do not even give usable criteria.

The courtesy authorship was not a bad thing in the past when people were more honest. But not now.

[ender]

Always ask yourself what the reader will think about who did what in your paper. This is the only test.

I don't know about this... I mean, is the point of research to change how people think about the field, or to change what they think about the person doing the research?  Someone raised this point on a previous thread, and I think it's something to consider.  If I let the above question drive my authorship decisions, I'd be so obsessed with reputation and credit that I'd never work with anyone.

But I do agree that there is a problem in many research communities that students are assumed to do only the grunt work.  That assumption is what needs to be changed.  When advisors' expectations are so low that they "generously" give students authorship (esp. first authorship on projects that the student did not initiate), this severely hurts the reputation and respect of students everywhere.  It's gotten to a point in my field where students simply aren't taken seriously.

I didn't realize how bad it was until a conference last month, where a student won an award for a particularly groundbreaking idea (the student had mentioned this stuff to me about a year earlier, and was having difficulty getting his advisor interested at the time). After his talk, everyone enthusiastically crowded around his advisor to ask questions... I found the student sobbing profusely in one of the back rooms ten minutes later.

[pyshnov]

ender:

Quote from: pyshnov on Yesterday at 12:23:32 PM
Always ask yourself what the reader will think about who did what in your paper. This is the only test.

I don't know about this... I mean, is the point of research to change how people think about the field, or to change what they think about the person doing the research?

I meant that authorship should be clear to the reader, and to test whether you made it clear to the reader, imagine yourself a reader who doesn't know what you know but only sees the published paper. Of course, authorship has no relation to "how people think about the field" or to "what they think about the person doing research".

If I let the above question drive my authorship decisions, I'd be so obsessed with reputation and credit that I'd never work with anyone.

Probably you misunderstood what I meant to say.

Re: students' authorship.
I would not defend students' authorship per se, nor the authorship of anybody from any "group". I am also surprised to hear that wrong attribution is a characteristic of some field of research. I think, it all depends on the honesty of particular people. Although, I am always naive: the power structure of science must be taken in consideration. However, again, a honest person would not use power improperly. Yes, there are many complaints from grad. students.

Long ago, on this forum I proposed introducing this rule: if a supervisor wants to contribute his own idea to the research of grad. student, he must make it in writing. In the absence of such document all the ideas shoud be considered as originated by the student. Indeed, in the University of Toronto where I was a PhD student, the thesis proposal had to be originated from the student, not supervisor. And it had to be approved by the Grad. Committee. If this is the general rule, the subsequent contributions of the supervisor can be made in a manner I proposed.

Sometimes, the dishonesty does more damage than causing "sobbing profusely".  The frustration of this person you mention is well understood by me, it is undesribable feeling, I would guess a rape is nothing compared with it. I would say it's a rape with police watching it and commenting in terms of your making love; because in practically all cases, the administration is condoning the professor's dishonesty.

When I asked the Ministry of Education to investigate my complaint of fraud (my supervisor kicked me out of the university before stealing my research, see http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/), the Ministry answered that it can not interfere in "educational process".

 

[onwego]

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.

Because you are forced to....

that's why I had to.  In the case of my field - I had to add a co-author who simple oversaw the facility that we used.  They contributed nothing to the experimental design, set up, funding, etc.  But it was 'standard'  So my 2 author paper that would have been XYZ and OnWeGo (2006) turned into XYZ, OnWeGo, Oversea'er (2006) [AKA - XYZ 2006 - so I get no inline credit].  Only facility like it in the world, had to do it there.  Had to list people.  Also I have situations where there are a list of people who are involved in obsure aspects of data collection that have to be listed if the 'permit' you to use their publicly released data.  I've got a paper with about 4 active researchers going right now, and about 4 'courtesy' authors. 

It drives me nuts.  I don't agree with it.  But if I don't do it, I'll get black listed.  When I'm big and tenured and powerful, I'm going to do something about it.  <<sigh>>

[pyshnov]

onwego:

Also I have situations where there are a list of people who are involved in obsure aspects of data collection that have to be listed if the 'permit' you to use their publicly released data.

I think it's a highly abnormal situation. Scientific paper should list as authors only the people who made its scientific content, which I would define as the work, ideas, conclusions, etc. never done before, but done this time with the specific purpose unknown to those who are "involved in obsure aspects of data collection". They should be excluded, but this must be dealt with by administration. Are these people not working for the university and receiving salary for this? And you say "publicly released data"! This situation is exactly the same as when you only refer to some research done before; you do not list the authors of this research as your co-authors.

[tyy_rad_sci]

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

....

These are wise words.  Consider well how a reputation for 'not giving someone credit' can affect your career.  I was once accused of this (even though the paper never made it to print!).

If in doubt, err on the side of generosity.  Based on your posts, it seems to me (sorry if this is wrong) that you are not happy with your former supervisor, and that might be affecting your judgement.  If it were me, and there were any truth that this person had contributed anything, I would just bury them in the middle of the authorship list.

It is a fact of academic life (well, at least in sci/eng) that authorship is often given, and even expected, based on 'minimal' contributions.  More to the point, modern techy research works off collaborations in which people may only make small contributions to publishable projects, but only do so because authorship is in the offing.

Good luck,
TYY