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.