next »

[braveheart01]

Hi,

My work is systems research, and we ususally build system prototype for our ideas. I usually assign a problem to a Ph.D. student A and he/she will work on it. But, once in a while, I may have another student B help student A with some minor tasks and B may not understand the whole research idea even after the paper is done. So my question is what criteria we should follow to decide whether we should make B a co-author or only acknowledge B's help in the Acknowledgment section of the paper? Any experience/advice?

BH

[untenured]

No one around to help on the fora?  I bump for this question.

I'd give advice, but I have none intelligent to offer on this one.

[mleok]

My inclination is to only include as co-authors people who are capable of discussing the paper coherently, or have contributed unique expertise, without which the paper would not have been possible. I don't think your student B satisfies either of these two criteria, and I would simply acknowledge the student's contribution in the acknowledgements.

Different fields have different conventions and expectations for co-authorship, and I think as long as you're clear with your students what your policy is, you should be okay either way.

There's a discussion on Wikipedia, which references some relevant primary sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_authorship

[infopri]

In one research project I worked on as a Ph.D. student, we had two faculty PIs, several doctoral students as co-authors (including me), and two master's students who completed important tasks that relied on their functional expertise and experience.  The two master's students, it was felt, had earned more than an acknowledgment, but their contributions did not rise to the level required for co-authorship.  As it turned out, the authorship was listed this way:

PI #1, PI #2, Doctoral Student #1, DS #2...DS #n, with assistance from Master's Student #1 and Master's Student #2. 

Most citations, of course, dropped the two master's students, but the published pieces themselves (there were two) had their names on them and the master's students could enter the publications on their CVs/resumes.

[braveheart01]

Thanks a lot for sharing your experience. It helps a lot. I think I should acknowlege my student B since he does not really underwstand the problems/solutions of the paper very well.

[jackit_n_tyy]

Step back and ask yourself how you can best help Student B.

Why not have B *learn* enough about the manuscript to defend it?

This would only be a win for B, who needs all the co-authorships possible.

Does this really take anything away from the rest of your team?  Not really.

I hasten to add that if you don't give Student B co-authorship, he will be loath to do volunteer work for you the next time, knowing he might get essentially nothing out of it.  Meanwhile, grad school drags on...

[lizardmom1]

As a doctoral student, I had a very bad experience with a tenure-track assistant professor who essentially promised me presentation and publication credit for: (1) designing an instrument (I am a psychometrician), and (2) collecting all data (a very time-consuming and not-too-easy task, especially since I had to get busy teachers to agree to participate). When the faculty member became angry at me because it "took too long" to gather data (She had NO experience in either instrument development or data collection), she presented on the data I had gathered with MY instrument, and never once gave me any credit whatsoever for my work. Then, she tried to spread lies about the amount of work I had done.

Needless to say, I now have rules for working with colleagues on research projects.  First of all, we get it in writing what each team member will do, and we agree that all members of the team will be listed as co-authors, with author order to be determined at or before the phase when we initially submit the article to a journal and/or to a conference.

[aintgotnobody]

This is always better discussed before the research rather than when writing the paper.  I know of a few half century long feuds that started because of leaving people off of papers. 

The idea above that the person had to make a contribution that was critical to the paper is a good one.  The authorship list can also have political implications in that you need to offer the opportunity to contribute and be an author to those that got you the funding as well.

Finnally, don't ever promise authorship and then omit someone.  No matter the contribution they eventually make, if they have been told they will be authors then they should be authors. 

[mleok]

Finnally, don't ever promise authorship and then omit someone.  No matter the contribution they eventually make, if they have been told they will be authors then they should be authors. 

Yes, I'm still annoyed at a former colleague because I supplied them with the original idea and solution method for a paper that they were working on and was promised co-authorship, but I was eventually left off the list after a falling out. Even though it has absolutely no impact on my current professional standing, it still bothers me enough that I would never collaborate or share my ideas with this person ever again.