I didn't understand that they could not support me before, they were very pushy on how they needed my work for their research group, because on the paper their research group is about my research topic, but in practice there are only 2 out of 50 researchers who do what I do. I had left the previous department one year before, for personal incompatibility with the supervisor (made me spent the first two years rewriting the introduction), without plans of finishing in this new particular department. Well, I guess the only way is too see how the first co-authors are going to behave, it is good to know that I do have a little say in who these co-authors should be.

the thing is, the thesis is already written, most of it, that is why they offered me only 6 months of scholarship to finish it,
so it's really "from my brain", so to speak, and there is very little time to discuss the papers
And the topic of the papers is the topic I have been working on for 3+1 years, of which they know nothing about. For funding reasons I understand they want more of my topic in their department, because it is really popular, but they know nothing about it. When they hired me I asked them several times if they understood that my thesis came from another disciplinary area with other methods and to read it well to see if it could fit in their department, I guess they didn't read it

well, I guess the problem arises from the fact that my new supervisors know nothing (like: zero, zilch) of my topic, and they put a lot of pressure in hiring me really fast, so I didn't have the time to learn about co-authoring, otherwise I would have thought twice about accepting. Can you please tell me how much of a say I have in choosing these co-authors? And how should I reply if these people who have NO idea of what I am writing about start saying "this is stupid, write this instead?" Do I get any kind of leverage?

Hello, this is an interdisciplinary issue: I started my thesis in the faculty of media studies, in the humanities' tradition the "author" is an important concept and, unless you actually sit down with one or more other persons to write the article, you don't have co-authors added after your name.
Now I moved to another faculty to finish the phd, psychology, and my supervisors are choosing (pretty arbitrarily) a long list of co-authors to add to my name in the title. As all my studies where in the Humanities, I can't help feeling that my work is diminished and brutalized by this method, can you please explain me where this tradition come from and how much of interference with my work should I accept or when should I hold my ground? Should I have a say in the choosing of the co-authors?
Thank you very much

thanks, my only issue is that I did take money from the uni for three years to do very little, and although I know well that my lack of achievement is mostly due to my supervisor (before meeting him I could write decent papers), I still feel he and others might see me as a leech of the system, taking money for producing very little. How can I fix that?

Hello,
I am writing here because I need some advice (badly): I had a scholarship for three years to do a PhD, but I didn't proceed at the desired speed, mostly because of my supervisor: after one year he completely changed the direction of the project, and insisted on me working with an angle of his liking, and had some really weird methods with regards to writing, anyway, I lost a ridiculous amount of time, and also the little academic reputation that I had before, because the angle he forced on me was not the best. I didn't quit before because I had some other practical problems and couldn't look for another job, then six months ago I just decided to pursue my own angle and never met the guy again, my papers are now accepted to conferences again, but I want to change supervisor.
He was the one who created the scholarship, and he is also very "powerful" in the country, so I am having difficulties in finding another supervisor unless I go look abroad. Next week I finally have to meet him after six months, and tell him that I don't want to see him anymore, basically, although we will have to meet at the final discussion of the dissertation, any ideas on how I can tell him that without pissing him off too much? I read that when I graduate he gets a check from the university, so maybe he is interested in letting me finish without interfering, still, even if I can't stand him I don't want to be offensive.

thanks for any suggestion! sorry for the length, I got carried away