Return to Answer

Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do … work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?

No. This is absolutely not fair.

By default, any work on a paper confers authorship. There are some well-defined exceptions, but these need to be justified. And they fall into specific categories:

• Editorial work (typesetting, proofreading etc), for which you pay.
• “Little effort work” (e.g. superficial proofreading, suggestions, discussions over coffee¹), which a friend/colleague does as a favour (that is usually returned), and which merits acknowledgement.²

Any intellectual contribution to a paper (even if you believe that it’s not a scientific contribution³) must be acknowledged and rewarded with authorship. This is doubly important when the person doing the work depends on a publication record for their career development (technical personnel might not find authorship very important; but they are explicitly paid, with money, to help out). These are simply the rules of the publishing game.

So: is an illustration an intellectual contribution? If it cannot be created automatically, chances are that the answer is yes.

But let’s say it isn’t in any way an intellectual contribution, it’s pure menial work: then you either pay somebody to do it, or you ask it as a favour.

Which brings us to the second major problem: the imbalance of power between a PI and a PhD student means that you just cannot ask favours from your student. Effectively, you are giving them orders to perform work, for free, outside of their contractual responsibility. This is exploitation. It’s irrelevant whether that was your intent or not.

In summary, asking your student to work for free is unethical, and potentially scientific misconduct: no matter the situation you either exploit their labour for free, or you steal their authorship.

This situation is, unfortunately, not uncommon in science. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s for this reason that the complacent acceptance in the replies and comments have generated no little outrage on Twitter.

¹ Scientific chats over coffee can be extremely fruitful, as any researcher knows. They much more often deserve authorship than is common practice.

² I know of some researchers that reward any kind of work on a paper with authorship, including trivial things like fixing typos. I find this excessive but it’s worth noting that this point of view exists.

³ Think about it carefully: what does that even mean?

Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do … work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?

No. This is absolutely not fair.

By default, any work on a paper confers authorship. There are some well-defined exceptions, but these need to be justified. And they fall into specific categories:

• Editorial work (typesetting, proofreading etc), for which you pay.
• “Little effort work” (e.g. superficial proofreading, suggestions, discussions over coffee¹), which a friend/colleague does as a favour (that is usually returned), and which merits acknowledgement.²

Any intellectual contribution to a paper (even if you believe that it’s not a scientific contribution³) must be acknowledged and rewarded with authorship. This is doubly important when the person doing the work depends on a publication record for their career development (technical personnel might not find authorship very important; but they are explicitly paid, with money, to help out). These are simply the rules of the publishing game.

So: is an illustration an intellectual contribution? If it cannot be created automatically, chances are that the answer is yes.

But let’s say it isn’t in any way an intellectual contribution, it’s pure menial work: then you either pay somebody to do it, or you ask it as a favour.

Which brings us to the second major problem: the imbalance of power between a PI and a PhD student means that you just cannot ask favours from your student. Effectively, you are giving them orders to perform work, for free, outside of their contractual responsibility. This is exploitation. It’s irrelevant whether that was your intent or not.

In summary, asking your student to work for free is unethical, and potentially scientific misconduct: no matter the situation you either exploit their labour for free, or you steal their authorship.

This situation is, unfortunately, not uncommon in science. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s for this reason that the complacent acceptance in the replies and comments have generated no little outrage on Twitter.

¹ Scientific chats over coffee can be extremely fruitful, as any researcher knows. They much more often deserve authorship than is common practice.

² I know of some researchers that reward any kind of work on a paper with authorship, including trivial things like fixing typos. I find this excessive but it’s worth noting that this point of view exists.

³ Think about it carefully: what does that even mean?

Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do … work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?

No. This is absolutely not fair.

By default, any work on a paper confers authorship. There are some well-defined exceptions, but these need to be justified. And they fall into specific categories:

• Editorial work (typesetting, proofreading etc), for which you pay.
• “Little effort work” (e.g. superficial proofreading, suggestions, discussions over coffee¹), which a friend/colleague does as a favour (that is usually returned), and which merits acknowledgement.²

Any intellectual contribution to a paper (even if you believe that it’s not a scientific contribution³) must be acknowledged and rewarded with authorship. This is doubly important when the person doing the work depends on a publication record for their career development (technical personnel might not find authorship very important; but they are explicitly paid, with money, to help out). These are simply the rules of the publishing game.

So: is an illustration an intellectual contribution? If it cannot be created automatically, chances are that the answer is yes.

But let’s say it isn’t in any way an intellectual contribution, it’s pure menial work: then you either pay somebody to do it, or you ask it as a favour.

Which brings us to the second major problem: the imbalance of power between a PI and a PhD student means that you just cannot ask favours from your student. Effectively, you are giving them orders to perform work, for free, outside of their contractual responsibility. This is exploitation. It’s irrelevant whether that was your intent or not.

In summary, asking your student to work for free is unethical, and potentially scientific misconduct: no matter the situation you either exploit their labour for free, or you steal their authorship.

This situation is, unfortunately, not uncommon in science. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s for this reason that the question (and the complacent acceptance in the replies and comments) have generated no little outrage on Twitter. Rightly so.

¹ Scientific chats over coffee can be extremely fruitful, as any researcher knows. They much more often deserve authorship than is common practice.

² I know of some researchers that reward any kind of work on a paper with authorship, including trivial things like fixing typos. I find this excessive but it’s worth noting that this point of view exists.

³ Think about it carefully: what does that even mean?

Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do … work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?

No. This is absolutely not fair.

By default, any work on a paper confers authorship. There are some well-defined exceptions, but these need to be justified. And they fall into specific categories:

• Editorial work (typesetting, proofreading etc), for which you pay.
• “Little effort work” (e.g. superficial proofreading, suggestions, discussions over coffee¹), which a friend/colleague does as a favour (that is usually returned), and which merits acknowledgement.²

Any intellectual contribution to a paper (even if you believe that it’s not a scientific contribution³) must be acknowledged and rewarded with authorship. This is doubly important when the person doing the work depends on a publication record for their career development (technical personnel might not find authorship very important; but they are explicitly paid, with money, to help out). These are simply the rules of the publishing game.

So: is an illustration an intellectual contribution? If it cannot be created automatically, chances are that the answer is yes.

But let’s say it isn’t in any way an intellectual contribution, it’s pure menial work: then you either pay somebody to do it, or you ask it as a favour.

Which brings us to the second major problem: the imbalance of power between a PI and a PhD student means that you just cannot ask favours from your student. Effectively, you are giving them orders to perform work, for free, outside of their contractual responsibility. This is exploitation. It’s irrelevant whether that was your intent or not.

In summary, asking your student to work for free is unethical, and potentially scientific misconduct: no matter the situation you either exploit their labour for free, or you steal their authorship.

This situation is, unfortunately, not uncommon in science. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s for this reason that the complacent acceptance in the replies and comments have generated no little outrage on Twitter.

¹ Scientific chats over coffee can be extremely fruitful, as any researcher knows. They much more often deserve authorship than is common practice.

² I know of some researchers that reward any kind of work on a paper with authorship, including trivial things like fixing typos. I find this excessive but it’s worth noting that this point of view exists.

³ Think about it carefully: what does that even mean?

Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do … work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?

No. This is absolutely not fair.

By default, any work on a paper confers authorship. There are some well-defined exceptions, but these need to be justified. And they fall into specific categories:

• Editorial work (typesetting, proofreading etc), for which you pay.
• “Little effort work” (e.g. superficial proofreading, suggestions, discussions over coffee¹), which a friend/colleague does as a favour (that is usually returned), and which merits acknowledgement.²

Any intellectual contribution to a paper (even if you believe that it’s not a scientific contribution) must be acknowledged and rewarded with authorship. This is doubly important when the person doing the work depends on a publication record for their career development (technical personnel might not find authorship very important; but they are explicitly paid, with money, to help out). These are simply the rules of the publishing game.

So: is an illustration an intellectual contribution? If it cannot be created automatically, chances are that the answer is yes.

But let’s say it isn’t in any way an intellectual contribution, it’s pure menial work: then you either pay somebody to do it, or you ask it as a favour.

Which brings us to the second major problem: the imbalance of power between a PI and a PhD student means that you just cannot ask favours from your student. Effectively, you are giving them orders to perform work, for free, outside of their contractual responsibility. This is exploitation. It’s irrelevant whether that was your intent or not.

In summary, asking your student to work for free is unethical, and potentially scientific misconduct: no matter the situation you either exploit their labour for free, or you steal their authorship.

This situation is, unfortunately, not uncommon in science. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s for this reason that the question (and the complacent acceptance in the replies and comments) have generated no little outrage on Twitter. Rightly so.

¹ Scientific chats over coffee can be extremely fruitful, as any researcher knows. They much more often deserve authorship than is common practice.

² I know of some researchers that reward any kind of work on a paper with authorship, including trivial things like fixing typos. I find this excessive but it’s worth noting that this point of view exists.

Is it fair to my PhD student if I ask them to do … work for a paper they're not going to be a coauthor of?

No. This is absolutely not fair.

By default, any work on a paper confers authorship. There are some well-defined exceptions, but these need to be justified. And they fall into specific categories:

• Editorial work (typesetting, proofreading etc), for which you pay.
• “Little effort work” (e.g. superficial proofreading, suggestions, discussions over coffee¹), which a friend/colleague does as a favour (that is usually returned), and which merits acknowledgement.²

Any intellectual contribution to a paper (even if you believe that it’s not a scientific contribution³) must be acknowledged and rewarded with authorship. This is doubly important when the person doing the work depends on a publication record for their career development (technical personnel might not find authorship very important; but they are explicitly paid, with money, to help out). These are simply the rules of the publishing game.

So: is an illustration an intellectual contribution? If it cannot be created automatically, chances are that the answer is yes.

But let’s say it isn’t in any way an intellectual contribution, it’s pure menial work: then you either pay somebody to do it, or you ask it as a favour.

Which brings us to the second major problem: the imbalance of power between a PI and a PhD student means that you just cannot ask favours from your student. Effectively, you are giving them orders to perform work, for free, outside of their contractual responsibility. This is exploitation. It’s irrelevant whether that was your intent or not.

In summary, asking your student to work for free is unethical, and potentially scientific misconduct: no matter the situation you either exploit their labour for free, or you steal their authorship.

This situation is, unfortunately, not uncommon in science. But that doesn’t make it right. It’s for this reason that the question (and the complacent acceptance in the replies and comments) have generated no little outrage on Twitter. Rightly so.

¹ Scientific chats over coffee can be extremely fruitful, as any researcher knows. They much more often deserve authorship than is common practice.

² I know of some researchers that reward any kind of work on a paper with authorship, including trivial things like fixing typos. I find this excessive but it’s worth noting that this point of view exists.

³ Think about it carefully: what does that even mean?