Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

9
  • "I do no think so.". The "no" should be a "not". Also, the last sentence, "Which grant you, at best, co-authoring." reads a little strangely. I'm not sure what it means. Commented May 19, 2014 at 15:23
  • Typos corrected. What I meant by the last sentence is that writing the paper (as opposed to doing the research) should give you, at best, the possibility to be listed as a distant second author. This is a work for a technical writer, a very important work, agreed, but still a logistic one.
    – WoJ
    Commented May 19, 2014 at 15:30
  • Ok, the extra `s' makes it clear. And for what it is worth, I agree. Commented May 19, 2014 at 15:32
  • 2
    First, writing the paper is not mere "logistics". The difference between a well-written paper and a badly written version of the same paper is huge. Second, according to the question, the advisor directed the research and defined the problems: again, two very significant contributions. You see it as the adviser-CEO seeking credit for the student-artist's work; maybe it's actually the student-bricklayer seeking credit for the advisor-architect's building? (Probably, it's neither of these things.) Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 8:59
  • 1
    @WoJ Bear in mind that students tend to underestimate the contribution made by their advisor. I'm not claiming that the advisor definitely ought to be first author; I'm just saying that I think the situation is more complex than you do and that we don't have enough information to make any call about who should be first author. Commented Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48