Timeline for Adviser wants to be joint first author, even though I did most of the research
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 23, 2014 at 13:11 | comment | added | WoJ | (followup from previous comment) I had the great chance to never have been subjected to that - it was actually the other way round twice (the first time my supervisor asked to be second author, while I fairly rated his contribution as first author; in the second case he asked me to be removed from the paper "because this is really interesting work, not worth diluting with a second author"). | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 13:10 | comment | added | WoJ | @DavidRicherby: absolutely agree with the estimate, thus my comment about bias. Now: as much as it may be difficult for a student to estimate their supervisor's contributions, I have seen many (way too many) cases where a student was forced to get invisible by his n+whatever supervisor. This was particularly true for interesting results. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 12:48 | comment | added | David Richerby | @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. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 12:00 | comment | added | WoJ | @DavidRicherby: The OP claims "In my research, My adviser only gives minimal advice that limited to the direction of the research and defining the problems." + some explanations. Together with the change of the title of the question which gives the supervisor more credit, he (the supervisor) is a good candidate for second author. Again I assume that the description of the OP is true and not biased. Finally, the reason given by the supervisor is not that he is the "architect" you mention but needs to be prominently published to be tenured. | |
| Jul 23, 2014 at 8:59 | comment | added | David Richerby | 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.) | |
| May 20, 2014 at 0:26 | comment | added | azer89 | I agree, your answer reflects my personal view | |
| May 19, 2014 at 15:32 | comment | added | Faheem Mitha | Ok, the extra `s' makes it clear. And for what it is worth, I agree. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 15:30 | comment | added | WoJ | 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. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 15:28 | history | edited | WoJ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
typo
|
| May 19, 2014 at 15:23 | comment | added | Faheem Mitha | "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. | |
| May 19, 2014 at 12:31 | review | First posts | |||
| May 19, 2014 at 12:57 | |||||
| May 19, 2014 at 12:14 | history | answered | WoJ | CC BY-SA 3.0 |