Supervisor as second author?
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 15:22:13 =======
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 15:21:43 =======
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 11:10:56 =======
Hi all :-)
I have written a journal paper on a particular topic, which originally I wrote as a document, and my supervisor read it, made a few light editing suggestions (like long paragraph, remove X word etc). He also suggested one or two places where I could add more detail. I am now submitting this for publication. Should I add him as a second author?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Chococake
Yes you should. Everyone in academia knows that the first author is the one that did the work. Others just contributed a bit here and there, much like your sup.
Yes you should. Everyone in academia knows that the first author is the one that did the work. Others just contributed a bit here and there, much like your sup.
Thanks. Everyone seems to have a different take on it. Which field are you in?
I can't comment on the humanities but if you're in the sciences (and prob social sciences also) then definitely put him as second author. It's very unusual to have single author papers from junior researchers in the sciences.
You may view his contributions as minimal, but his position and decision to appoint you as a PhD student have facilitated you in being able to write it, even if his direct contribution to the document is small. In science subjects the PI of the group will always be last author on any publications going out of that group, except in some particular circumstances.
Look at it this way: if you're first author everyone will know you wrote it and the professional credit is yours. But having his name on it as well might attract a wider readership than if you were the sole author, so perhaps it's a good thing, and certainly doesn't do any harm.
I can't comment on the humanities but if you're in the sciences (and prob social sciences also) then definitely put him as second author. It's very unusual to have single author papers from junior researchers in the sciences.
You may view his contributions as minimal, but his position and decision to appoint you as a PhD student have facilitated you in being able to write it, even if his direct contribution to the document is small. In science subjects the PI of the group will always be last author on any publications going out of that group, except in some particular circumstances.
Look at it this way: if you're first author everyone will know you wrote it and the professional credit is yours. But having his name on it as well might attract a wider readership than if you were the sole author, so perhaps it's a good thing, and certainly doesn't do any harm.
Thanks for the detailed explanation :). Two things:
1. Adding his name will not attract a wider readership, as this isn't his field.
2. There are other supervisors/academics I know who I could send the paper to 'review' and add their name on, and their name 'will' attract a wider readership. Would you recommend I do that?
2. There are other supervisors/academics I know who I could send the paper to 'review' and add their name on, and their name 'will' attract a wider readership. Would you recommend I do that?
Not unless you want to annoy your supervisor and lie to the journal about author contributions. Named authors should have done *something*, even if just what your sup has done.
Academia is 75% intellectual stuff and 25% politics. It's a lesson to learn in your PhD.
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 11:45:43 =======
2. There are other supervisors/academics I know who I could send the paper to 'review' and add their name on, and their name 'will' attract a wider readership. Would you recommend I do that?
Not unless you want to annoy your supervisor and lie to the journal about author contributions. Named authors should have done *something*, even if just what your sup has done.
Academia is 75% intellectual stuff and 25% politics. It's a lesson to learn in your PhD.
That may annoy my supervisor, but it may not. But it wouldn't be a lie, because they would probably contribute in the same way as my supervisor did, if not more.
Thanks for your advice, I suppose I have a lot to learn regarding academia politics.
Hi Chococake,
I always put both my supervisors regardless their contribution. I am in the sciences and I put my first supervisor as the last author, which is a way to show who is the boss:)
Generally, I receive a lot of support from them, and I feel that putting their names is the least I can do to acknowledge it.
Hi Chococake,
I always put both my supervisors regardless their contribution. I am in the sciences and I put my first supervisor as the last author, which is a way to show who is the boss:)
Generally, I receive a lot of support from them, and I feel that putting their names is the least I can do to acknowledge it.
Thanks for your input! Is that support just general support or directly related to your paper/s?
I put both my PhD supervisors as second/third authors on papers I write - they sort out between themselves the actual order they go in. They both read through and comment on papers I write, so they do contribute, but even where their contribution is minimal they would expect to be on my papers. Personally I think that's fair enough - they're guiding my development as a researcher so they are having an input into my papers, even if it's more indirect. I'm applied social science/psychology/environmental studies, very cross-disciplinary, and that means that neither of my supervisors are exactly in my field, but I think they'd be right to be a little offended if I didn't include them - it's not politics so much as recognition that they have a role in my work.
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 12:34:48 =======
I put both my PhD supervisors as second/third authors on papers I write - they sort out between themselves the actual order they go in. They both read through and comment on papers I write, so they do contribute, but even where their contribution is minimal they would expect to be on my papers. Personally I think that's fair enough - they're guiding my development as a researcher so they are having an input into my papers, even if it's more indirect. I'm applied social science/psychology/environmental studies, very cross-disciplinary, and that means that neither of my supervisors are exactly in my field, but I think they'd be right to be a little offended if I didn't include them - it's not politics so much as recognition that they have a role in my work.
Thanks Batfink27. I understand where you are coming from, and your situation has helped me make a decision. However, I do think there is a need for clear guidelines as to what 'contribution' really means, and when someone can be added as an author to a paper.
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 13:46:30 =======
Yes you should. Everyone in academia knows that the first author is the one that did the work. Others just contributed a bit here and there, much like your sup.
Thanks. Everyone seems to have a different take on it. Which field are you in?
I'm in Engineering Science.
Edited to add: What possible harm is there in putting your sup as a second author? If the answer is that it won't do any harm at all (even if it doesn't add any benefit) then do it anyway and keep your sup on your side. I see no reason to not add their name. Everyone knows that you wrote the piece, it's just a nicety to add his/her name.
======= Date Modified 24 Jan 2012 13:46:30 =======
Yes you should. Everyone in academia knows that the first author is the one that did the work. Others just contributed a bit here and there, much like your sup.
Thanks. Everyone seems to have a different take on it. Which field are you in?
I'm in Engineering Science.
Edited to add: What possible harm is there in putting your sup as a second author? If the answer is that it won't do any harm at all (even if it doesn't add any benefit) then do it anyway and keep your sup on your side. I see no reason to not add their name. Everyone knows that you wrote the piece, it's just a nicety to add his/her name.
Thanks! Your advice taken on board :-)
