Ok, some of you may remember I was unhappy with my Supervisor, thanks for all the advice and I am now in the process of changing Sup, which may take a while, so I am getting on with the research in the meantime.

The question is this, I feel that I have something which would be worth sending to a journal to see if it is publishable, I did it whilst working with main sup, but they had nominal imput. Second sup is still second sup, as far as I'm aware, but isn't aware of the issue with main sup (yet.) So, if I submit my script for publication, is this breaching some sort of academic 'manners,' as I'd be doing it completely off my own back with no guidance, or is it showing initiative?

Thanks :-)

I would go for it, personally! It might be worth running it past your second sup just whilst you're waiting for a new main supervisor though, just to keep them in the loop.

Well done you - really glad you're getting it all sorted, that's great news (up)

Thanks LL :-) I'm laying low from second sup atm, in case we have any awkward supervisor based discussions, the department are going to talk to her next week :-(

I think it might depend on your funding situation. If you publish data that was generated using funding from a larger project especially in a lab, you might need to include the supervisor if that was who got the grant. I'd try and seek advice if you are in that situation.

Hi Bewildered,
It's an internal University scholarship, not sure if that makes much difference, but they allocated the Sup

I'd think you might be OK then but conventions vary quite a bit between subjects. If you wanted to be on the safe side, you could wait until next week when your 2nd supervisor has been told, and then ask him/her.

If your paper is coming from your PhD and they have contributed to your PhD then even if they haven't contributed directly to the paper you need to put your names on it. Just from others I have heard of it is only manners and you will retain your reputation in the department! Just my thinking on it!!

I found that the publishers want to know your affilliation and the range of authors and that the customary expectation was supervisor and university that you attended while doing the research gets credit. Even if you wrote it yourself at home, etc. Nominal input doesn't mean the same for students (even doctoral candidates) as it does for publishers, academics and universities.

So if you were invited to write something for a book say ( a chapter in an edited book) based on an area of your expertise as a professional or academic-then you are the sole author -if you were the only one writing it and your university affilliation as primary research institute (usually mentioned in the author blurbs) is mentioned and gets any research points (Awarded by Aust. government-not sure if Brits. do it though).
If you submit an academic article in a good journal, then supervisor gets some credit as a secondary author and your university or educational institute should also be mentioned. It is not so much based on the writing or even the initiation of ideas and research but the concept of knowledge-which is a construction or something created from a shared enterprise rather than something you gave birth to by yourself-sort of like the 'Virgin Mary'.

Ah ok thank you for all your replied :-( i think I've had enough excitment for one PhD, so I might hold off and then use what I do in future to get published :-) How difficult is it to get work accepted, and does anybody have any tips for the future? Thanks :-)