This is a strange post, and I think to comprehend it fully we need to know a bit about the background. So, what was the motivation for getting a second supervisor? Secondly, why didn't the person you approached to be your second supervisor not automatically tell you that all three of you needed to take part in the discussion? Are these two people in competition or something? This is a very important decision and not one that can be made on the spur of a moment.

I've known PhD students who've had two supervisors and often it's no walk in the park. You inherit two people's agendas and two people's way of thinking. You WILL experience conflicting pressure from either side, assuming they both have equal say in your progress, so please be aware of this and prepared for it.

jouri:

"What Shani said reminded me of the episode where I submitted a journal article without telling my supervisor. He wasn't involved or contributed to it anyway. Once it finally got accepted I asked the editors to add him as a second author. When I told him, I expected respect or gratefulness. Instead I nearly got kicked out of my programme and had to explain myself in front of a committee. Shows that, unfortunately, they dont always honour independent thought, although they should, really."

LOL! What an utterly ridiculous thing to do! You say that your supervisor wasn't involved or contributed to the work in the paper, so why on Earth did you add his name?!? No wonder he was livid. What if the work was total tripe? I wouldn't want my name added to something of which I took no part in and gave no authorisation for, would you? That's not independent thought, it's misrepresentation.

Well I have decided to bring it up once more when I see him next and if he says it's fine or doesn't want to talk about it, then I will let it go.

As for co-supervison, they won't really have equal say in it. My first supervisor will still be my "primary" and it's actually agianst our school policy to have only one. Second one will still have SOME input in my project though.

There is also some "competition" involved between the two guys that I haven't been aware of. Second guy is a lot more senior than my original supervisor and I also got a weird feeling that the second guy was almost enjoying the fact that I went to him without talking to my supervisor. He was also over-eager to accept the role which was strange given how extremly busy he is. This was also one of the reasons I asked him before talking to my original supervsior - I was 90% sure he would say no, so I almost thought there is no need to discuss it.

Oh well, what's done is done.

How long have you been a PhD student? If it's against the school's policy to have only one supervisor, why were you not assigned two at the very start?

A little over a year. I was assigned two at the start, but the second one left the country and academia (I never had any contact with her before she left anyway) so I had one supervisor for a while until it was picked up by the head of school..

"LOL! What an utterly ridiculous thing to do! You say that your supervisor wasn't involved or contributed to the work in the paper, so why on Earth did you add his name?!? No wonder he was livid. What if the work was total tripe? I wouldn't want my name added to something of which I took no part in and gave no authorisation for, would you? That's not independent thought, it's misrepresentation."

Sorry, but that's not true, Procrastinator. First of all, the paper got accepted in a well respected journal, peer-reviewed and one of the better ones. So the work wasn't "total tripe".

Second, I didn't get into trouble because of adding his name, but mainly because of submitting a paper without his approval and approval from my school's dean. Nevertheless, the advisor had no input so I thought I'll give it a try. I basically wanted to do him a favour by adding his name but instead I got into trouble for having the nerve to try to publish my own work. Shows the state of academia, if you ask me.

One week later, I got criticised for not adding his name as first author, so that tells you another story. Basically, they were just a bunch of academics who wanted to show me my place in the hierarchy.

jouri you do not "do people favours" by adding their names to articles of which they took no part in! It contravenes the rules of every peer reviewed journal out there as well as the rules of every worthwhile university. It's as simple as that. You were 100% in the wrong here, so just accept it.

jouri: "Sorry, but that's not true, Procrastinator. First of all, the paper got accepted in a well respected journal, peer-reviewed and one of the better ones. So the work wasn't "total tripe"."

I never said it was tripe, I said WHAT IF it was tripe. Have you never read a questionable peer-reviewed paper before? I have, in fact I see them on a daily basis. With that in mind can you not see that it might be damaging to someone's academic career if their name was used without their consent? That is why the standards are in place.

jouri: "Second, I didn't get into trouble because of adding his name, but mainly because of submitting a paper without his approval and approval from my school's dean."

Again, you are a member of a university so you have to abide by their rules. You broke them, so you paid the price - very clear and simple. Your university has a standard to uphold; obviously one of the ways they maintain that standard is by requiring some sort of official authorisation over work that gets published in their name. Don't like the rules? Feel free to go it alone independently. To be honest I feel sympathy for your supervisor, because you appear to me to be an arrogant jobsworth.

A couple of years ago there was a Greek academic who did the same thing by adding the name of his toddler son to a few of his papers. It was his intention to give the kid a head start in case he wanted a career in academia in the future. I'm not sure what became of him, but suffice to say it was a big enough scandal to reach the international news channels.

I don't think there is any need for being personal or agressive and calling me names.

Besides, the problem is, I wanted to add his name because it is COMMON PRACTICE that supervisor's get credit, despite having no input. So, in fact, I wanted to play to the ridiculous rules of universities. Although I don't support them. If you read peer-reviewed articles, you will often see three names. The first one being the senior professor who perhaps gave no input at all. The second name, the PHD student, who did all the work. The third name, some random guy who perhaps commented on the work once. That's the reality. I don't like the reality but it exists. And as I said, later they wanted me to add the professor as the first author, I didn't get into trouble because of adding the name, but because of the fact that I tried extremely hard to publish and succeeded.

I would like to add that I don't like your tone, so modify it down, or f off.

jouri: "Besides, the problem is, I wanted to add his name because it is COMMON PRACTICE that supervisor's get credit, despite having no input. So, in fact, I wanted to play to the ridiculous rules of universities. Although I don't support them."

As I said in my previous post. Don't like the rules? Don't want to play by them? Then feel free to leave. I'm sure you will not be missed.

Well firstly confused, I dont think you 'betrayed' your supervisor as such.. But it was a bit out of order to appoint a co-supervisor without his say so, in my opinion he should have had the final say as to who was to join him as your supervisors.

Secondly I thought i t was perfectly normal to have more than one supervisor. I have 3 supervisors and 2 advisors, each with different backgrounds and experience, so it works well.

Thirdly, I can appreciate why your supervisor got a bit annoyed with you Jouri for putting his name down when he hadn't even seen the paper; I wouldn't want my name on a paper that I hadn't read. However, I can understand why you wanted to include him as I understand it is 'the done' thing to have your supervisor as a co-author, but you should have run it by him first really.

Procrastinator I think its a bit tenuous to compare a PhD student adding her supervisor as a co-author with a guy who added his toddler. I doubt the toddler would have given his dad guidance and advice throughout the PhD process like a supervisor does!