Timeline for Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do "miscellaneous" work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2017 at 9:48 | comment | added | Konrad Rudolph | @user3067860 But why does "no data analysis" equal "no authorship"? There are lots of contributions worthy of authorship, not just data analysis. Making an even moderately complex figure is an intellectual contribution (if you're not happy with that, buy an image from Shutterstock, or pay somebody to make it). The whole mindset towards authorship on display here is backwards: the default should be that contributions confer authorship. And you need to find specific reasons to waive that requirement. | |
| Sep 8, 2017 at 18:15 | comment | added | user3067860 | @BPND A plot drawn using LaTeX and PFGPlots could take a while to create with absolutely no data analysis if the creator has no familiarity with computer programming or anything related. (I had several fellow students who were very strong mathematically, but only had a basic understanding of concepts like "double click" and "menu".) | |
| Sep 8, 2017 at 9:12 | comment | added | BPND | @alephzero I do not seem to be saying that. The point is that the supervisor is unwilling/unable to perform an authorship-meriting part himself. If you distribute that kind of workload, even acknowledging the vast amount of time required, deal with the consequences (which is "dilution" of authorlist). | |
| Sep 8, 2017 at 6:20 | comment | added | Jessica B | @Fomite Your work for that paper would have been in working out what picture to draw and why doing so had something meaningful to say, not the drawing of the picture. Learning to use LaTex is not the same thing. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 23:01 | comment | added | Fomite | @JessicaB I had an entire paper that could be summarized as "Drawing a picture" - I'd say it depends entirely on the picture, and what it took to create it. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 20:09 | comment | added | alephzero | @BPND That argument might earn a lawyer his/her fee, but it makes no scientific sense. You seem to be saying that if you work slowly and/or inefficiently because you don't know how to use the correct tools, that somehow increases the "science content* of what you are doing! Someone who has never used LaTeX before might take a week to learn how to do something I could do in 15 minutes (and maybe I would do it "better" than them as well, having more experience of the tradeoffs between what is possible and what is quick and easy to do) - but so what, so far as "authorship" is concerned? | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 11:43 | comment | added | BPND | A plot that takes days to create is at least data analysis, if not data interpretation (though probably not by a new PhD student). According to Science, this merits authorship: sciencemag.org/authors/science-editorial-policies | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 11:36 | comment | added | Jessica B | @BPND Not binding, but see icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/… for example. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 10:35 | comment | added | BPND | It requires to be a scientific contribution. We can all argue over what actually IS a scientific contribution. Drawing nice illustrator figures for a few days for a review would quite likely yield authorship. Spending a few days on a plot does not? | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 8:46 | comment | added | Jessica B | Drawing a picture is NOT authorship. She would probably be the copyright owner of the picture, unless university rules state otherwise, so would be owed acknowledgement of that. But being an author on a paper requires more. | |
| Sep 7, 2017 at 8:43 | history | answered | ImportanceOfBeingErnest | CC BY-SA 3.0 |