Hi,

For the last 6-12 months I have worked in a university social science research institute, assisting with research projects and other projects which are externally funded. I am very happy with my job, my colleagues and career path. However, I am having a problem with assigning co-authors and was wondering if other have faced this same delicate problem.

Last year my supervisor (my boss and will be my PhD supervisor this year) asked me to write a book chapter for him on the particular topic of the book. I developed the theoretical framework, analysed the data (which his institute previously collected for an international project) and wrote up the results and discussion. My supervisor and his boss read a few drafts and made come minor comments, and I sent it off to the editor of the book. The editor had a few minor suggestions, which I followed and resubmitted.

Throughout the process I had listed my name as the sole author, but earlier this week my supervisor sent me comments on the chapter and added his name, his boss, the editor and another co-author to the paper. All of the co-authors were involved in the data collection and earlier papers coming from the data. I had a meeting with my supervisor and his boss, and they had some interesting, important and critical things to say about what I wrote. It was pretty much what one would expect from a peer review. However, I was annoyed that they added their names to the book chapter without even discussing this with me. Clearly I thought this was my own work as I only put my name as the author on the earlier drafts, and clearly I misunderstood my role in the team. I get the feeling that this is going to be a pattern of my work (once this chapter is done, I was asked to write another chapter).

I owe a lot to my supervisor. My salary, future PhD and future work contracts depend on good relationships. I don't want to cause trouble, but at the same time I don't think it is honest to add co-authors who have only commented (not written) the chapter or were only involved in the data collection (four year ago). Fair enough, they could all simply make changes to the paper to justify their authorship, but the editor was already ready for it to be published in the format I wrote entirely.

I suspect others have been in this situation as well. There is a huge power difference between me and the other people involved. My approach has been to be quiet about it, be thankful that I have a good salary and hope that some co-authorships come my way on future publications where my contributions are minimal. Perhaps this is the reality of “teamwork” in research institutes. The seniors bring in the money, the juniors do a lot of the work, and everyone shares the credit.

I would say (certainly in a science subject anyway) that having the supervisors name and anyone else who contributed to the content of the paper/book chapter should be listed as an author or at least acknowledged. I do find it strange that the editor has been added too though...

======= Date Modified 11 Jan 2012 04:29:54 =======
Hi Billy, you just have to add them. It's pretty much protocol when publishing I think. I'm currently revising a paper on my Masters for submission to a fairly prestigious journal and I have my supervisor as coauthor, even though she has not had any input into the writing of this paper at all. She was my supervisor for the thesis so certainly was a strong influence when I wrote the thesis, so she becomes the author on this paper as well.

I was added as a minor-coauthor on a colleague's paper along with a few others, simply because I had made some comments about her program (orally) and these may have had influences on aspects of her program. I certainly didn't ask to be included and felt a bit silly when I was acknowledged but she knew the form for the journal and wanted to do this.

It seems a bit strange at first, especially if, like me, you are wondering whether the coauthors are going to be happy with what you put their name to but once you get over the 'authorship' issue and just see it as an academic protocol that acknowledges the idea that knowledge is never produced in a vacuum, it doesn't get too annoying. The readers all know that the first author or first two authors are pretty much the writers of the piece.

Yeah, I agree with the others who have commented. The most important thing by far is "who is the first author". People know that the first author is pretty much always the one who really did the work. Being a third or fourth author usually just means they supplied some data or something like that.

======= Date Modified 11 Jan 2012 23:03:56 =======
I agree too; it seems fair enough, particularly since the new co-authors were involved in the data collection, without which there would be no publication. If your supervisor is well-known and well-respected, you may even gain some kudos by association. Most people will read between the lines of a list of co-authors and know who has done most of the work!

Until relatively recently it was accepted that supervisors had the right to be named as the sole author of publications researched and written by their students, simply hijacking the whole thing. There were a not inconsiderable number of widely-published professors who never put pen to paper, simply resting on their laurels and claiming - perfectly legally - the fruits of their research students' labour. At least those days have gone!

I once did ALL the work and research for a project and wrote the book chapter (which didn't need corrected) but being wet behind the ears put only my supervisors name on the chapter, just prior to submission. He saw it and said something like, 'You helped with this and so you should get a mention' and put me down as second author. He had done absolutely nothing! But just starting out and him being my employer I thought it was the norm and was delighted that I even got a mention. He was a fantastic employer though, but now I know why his publication record was so high. You live and learn...

======= Date Modified 12 Jan 2012 09:35:54 =======

I had considered that at the time but I was new to it all and thought well I'm being paid to do a job and I work for him and he was one of the best employers I ever had.

I'll know the next time though:-)

======= Date Modified 12 Jan 2012 11:49:06 =======
Double post - sorry!

Yikes, MissPiggy! I have not heard of this happening in the UK since the early 1990s, so thought everyone was now enlightened (naive, I know). Not exactly a motivation to publish, then ... :-(