Hi Dear John

That's true but it's not fair

Interesting question - I think the answer will probably depend on both norms in individual fields and institutions.  I've spoken to colleagues in a variety of fields, so I'm basing my answer on those conversations.  In the humanities for example, students write largely on their own and their supervisors do not (usually) expect to have their names on papers or books as collaborators despite huge amounts of input and critique over the years.  Conversely, in scientific disciplines like psychology and neuroscience, authorship is expected as the trainee conducted the research in the supervisor's lab using their resources (and presumably the supervisor edited the paper as well). 

One should also consider the value of having a supervisor's name on a paper - these are (hopefully) seasoned academics who are well respected in the field - their name adds credence and helps establish the role of the young researcher - without their backing, a sole-author paper by a trainee may very well be passed over.  

Generally, the person who put the most work into the paper will have their name first - this is normally the trainee.  Supervisors having already established their credentials (and hopefully not doing the grunt-work for the paper), normally take the senior-author position (last author).  Of course there are exceptions, but again it is one of the roles of a supervisor to help those in their charge establish themselves - a first authorship helps more earlier in one's career than after it has been established.  

There is also a power imbalance - consider that if a supervisor wished to take the first authorship (or whichever author position), a trainee has very little recourse if they wish to stay on good terms with this person.  So there is a certain amount of politics here.  Should a student attempt to publish something *without* their supervisor's knowledge or blessing, this might negatively impact their relationship, and the student's further prospects.  

I think perhaps the best way to avoid issues in the long run is to have a frank discussion about this with the trainee/collaborator early on in the project where you both agree that the person who does x should be in the first author position, and the person who does y (edits?) should be a senior author.  This can be revised later if someone ends up doing more or less work.  I wouldn't necessarily differentiate between undergraduate, master's or PhD papers provided the role of the first and second author are consistent in terms of work-load.  

Your final point about professors giving students help without recognition is an important one - I think that likely a meeting or two may not warrant an authorship.  However beyond that, you will probably reach a point where you may say to the student - "I'm quite happy to continue helping you, but we should discuss my role as an author as I have/will be investing quite a bit of time and intellectual effort into this project" - I think most people would consider that extremely fair.  

Well, I get to good spirit of the question. However, in order to be sincere, they should not: that can - provided that there is a solid academic and human community with those/that student(s).

As John rightly said, it depends on the discipline. Also, there are criteria for authorship. If a supervisor did not make meaningful contributions to a paper, it will be unfair to have his/her name on the paper. For example, few days ago I sent one of my supervisors a paper I drafted from my research and asked for her contribution. She read the paper and responded that the work is clean and thus does not give room for a joint authorship Ideally this should be the principle, but students should be ready to play the 'academic politics' (of allowing their supervisors' will to prevail), otherwise they may severe their relationships with their supervisors and run into problems (as I have seen in my country of origin).

I always put my trainees' names ahead of my name, I think they should be accredited since they have put their energy and efforts in the work they had made a commitment to move forward. However, I may be the minority in my specialty.  I usually put the part of my work to 10 to 20 % and the rest belongs to my trainees.

Good question. A lot of exploitation of students goes on in this regard in universities all over. There are academics, who do not do anything in the paper or just do some minor editing or give suggestions, and want to be first author of the paper concerned. The joint paper can be with any level of student, as the publishability will get tested in the refereeing process. But the professor's name should be added as co-author only if s/he has made substantial or major contribution. Mostly, the professor's name should be the second author. If the work is mainly of the professor, and the student's assistance is obtained in say data collection or some drafting, referencing or editing, then the student's name can be added as the second author. 

Dear All,

The answer is yes. But with some conditions: if the professors’ have got a real and significant contribution to the message of the manuscript. This practice is not ethical in case of honorary authorships. It would be useful to have some data on the rate of honorary authorships in various scientific fields.

Dear All,

I used to say: professors should write their own articles. A professor without ideas is but a marionette or an unsuitable teacher/ researcher.

Certainly, in case of real team works where contributions of the participants are considerable the knowledge and experience of a professor is logically determining.

I know personally, many university teachers who have “lived” from the publications of their students for more than 10 or 20 years.

Dear András,

your additional condition is the point. If the professor is the leader of the team, has given academic advice and help and has contributed to the results, of course s/he should be coauthor. In all other cases, no!

Dear all,

In a students project, definitely the supervisor's contribution in terms of work design, trouble shooting, thesis writing, correction, manuscript writing etc etc..should be there. Without which a professor cannot claim as a supervisor...in real sense. In such case the supervisor possess the right for authorship as corresponding author or even as a co author depending upon the situation. There are certain cases where the students merely do submit their dissertation and go away for job or higher studies and the supervisors end up with writing the manuscripts..What will be the case of authorship then...???

what I practice for the past 46 years

All papers have only 3 persons - others I ignore in my CV

if the project is mine I demand authorship

if it is my student   the  Phd work  I will include my  name

For other I simply ask them to acknowledge me for discussions

It is WE who form rules

By and large, they are co-authors (or not) in the article and they decide these questions on the basis of their conjoint assess of participation each of them. It is not matter: student or professor!

I don't think there is any matter in the co-authors formal ranking (student/research fellow/professor) in determining the list of the authors. In any case it should be 99% based of the contribution into the work to be published,  1% left for some personal issues/habits/etc.

Namely, if a professor have made a significant contribution into the work, he/she should be among the co-authors. In the supervisor did nothing, why he/she should be among the author? However, the contribution can be diverse, including but not limited to: the bare idea with no suggestions to develop it (even if it has been developed by a student on its own, the start is extremely important); discussion on the way (say, the work has been accomplished in a month instead of half a year due to rejection of the unreasonable branches and focused planning by the supervisor, even if he did not enter the lab); writing assistance; and even providing the space and facilities for the work to be done.

The latter item seems to be often neglected or underestimated. I sometimes hear from the colleagues that a professor/supervisor did almost nothing about the work but asked to be among the paper authors. Indeed, it is sometimes the case when the complainer is a research fellow with his/her owm sources of financial support. In this case I can pretend some part of the work to be done on the researcher's own. The same applies to a student being funded from some external source and having only scientific support from his/her professor - this support can be not connected to the subject of the paper. However, in the overwhelming majority of the cases (I would say close to 100% in my country) the student work is financially supported by the professor - and even if the supervisor did not touch this particular part of the work, he/she should be acknowledged for the mere opprtunity to carry out the research (admission to the lab, opportunity to use the library, etc).

Herein I have been discussing the work involving experiment. I do not have any experience with completely theoretical work that can be done outside of the lab. In the latter case, of course, the reasoning may be somewhat different. Anyway, my point is that the authorship should be decided upon basing on the contribution to the work, not by the formal position of the persons involved. 

I agree with Evgeny, authorship should be based of the contribution, regardless if is a under or postgraduate student. I usually publish with medical students, who participate in my research studies and projects.

Even more, in the case of medical research, the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors (ICMJE) clearly states who is an author:

Who Is an Author?

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:

-Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

-Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

-Final approval of the version to be published; AND

-Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

In addition to being accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done, an author should be able to identify which co-authors are responsible for specific other parts of the work. In addition, authors should have confidence in the integrity of the contributions of their co-authors.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.

http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#two

what i feel and practice

1. the authors should have contributed to the paper

2. they are responsible for the contents

3. The corresponding author is only a spokesperson

4. individuals  should  be honest  -they should demand when they have not contibuted

agreed  Palani

It IS somewhat different that just co-authors that are colleagues.  A student/professor relationship has the element of authority that colleagues as coauthors do not, assuming they are not in a supervisor/underling position; otherwise similar issues of authority exist. 

Having said that, either everyone here works with and in the ideal situation, university, and other academics, or does not want to get into the negatives of the issue.  There is a lot of competition and dishonesty in the world of academics, including plagiarism, taking credit for others' work, and down-right stealing of others' work.  It is quite possible that a student does not have a choice in the  matter of coauthoring, either tacit or stated. 

In co-authorship with a student, at least he/she (the student) is getting some credit, vs. the professor publishing a student's work as his/her own (which happens often, please do not pretend it does not); AND with the student having little or no recourse.

 dear Mary-Helen Castanuela

IF the work  is supervised by the guide   student  can include

Most of my Phd students were working with different scientists they publish with them not including my name

basically one must be honest -- 

Dear MaryHelen,

If professor is co-author of paper without participation in its writing or if his/her participation is 99%, but he/she is second author it is not science. It is problem of system of education and science. And nobody says "no problem".

Hi..

In our college we are publish research with students of Master degree..

Their duties are to collect datas and to find out related researches if available..

Thus they would preper for their own thesis as well as for their future research after Master degree..

Yes everyone must be honest-- just the same as everyone must not kill.  And whether it is 99% or 10 % or however much-- I think both Oleg and Prof. missed entirely the points that I made in my reply.

Yes right "everyone must be honest" and first of all, Professor. Or we discuss details of ways to counter dishonesty in science by means of co-authorship with students here?

I vote "professors shouldn't co-author with students." The reason is exactly given by Mr. Anderson; "a sole-author paper by a trainee may very well be passed over.  "  The sad consequence that a trainee-solo paper being passed over is totally a problem of the academic society, not the trainee him/herself. Of course, if the paper doesn't have the quality of being published, then sure it's alright that it's passed and it should be passed. But it is not the case if the paper has a worthy quality. Whether a paper is to be published or not should not be decided by who the author is but whether it has an information worthy of doing so.  Letting papers getting extra credit because their is an eminent researcher's name with in the authors gives credit to the eminent researcher who is probably his/her supervisor. If a trainee is well gifted, then the supervisor get's a free lunch with hardly any work. Do I mean that supervisors shouldn't get credit for their training? NO! Of course not! It just doesn't have to be shown on a paper. If a supervisor wants to show his teaching ability, then write it in his own CV or something. Supervisors getting a free ride to get another paper in their CV is definitely in adequate. It is dishonesty, genuine. And this is how a 300 paper/year researchers are born. And this is the shortcut for them to get funded more easily, for him only paying only a portion to the paper's establishment. This is insane. I had always thought that authors should only be the ones who contributed in a close percentage of work or the impact of idea. Not just be cause one is a supervisor. Even if one is a trainee, he should owe the responsibility to the content of the paper if he/ she writes one. And the supervisor's job is exactly to make the trainee achieve such knowledge and professionalism so that he/she can owe those responsibility. One must remember, a supervisor is at a position to teach and train the trainee. That is his job towards the trainee and not necessary to collaborate with him. I wouldn't forbid a supervisor to collaborate with his own apprentice, but even if one does so, his job is still to teach and train. If he want's a paper that he can add on his CV, he should write his own one conducted by himself, not anyone else. Some may argue "Where do you think in the world can I find the time to do lab activities? I've got to get funds for my trainees and staffs so they can have an opportunity. If your saying that this is a wrong doing, then explain to me how?" I don't have an answer to that because I don't think it's a wrong doing. I think it's a malfunction of the fund-rasing system itself. One get's better chances to win a grant with a longer CV. This is the part that I think is wrong. If there's a one that doesn't have a long CV but each of his/her papers have a somewhat impact, then he/she should be a strong candidate to win a grant. At least a higher chance than the one with just a long CV, where only a few has a worthy of impact, plus it's all not his/her first authorship. This question strikes one of the very essence of scientific honesty. If you can't see why this is such a fundamental issue over science, then look what happened to the STAP cell argument. There's a dead man, a suicide out from this incident. He was one of the authors. One that can be seen as the supervisor of the first author, a young female scientist. She was doing all the lab work. I strongly doubt that the man who committed suicide did any lab work concerned to this topic. Whether he has the technique to conduct by himself the necessary lab work or not, one must remember, right now at this very moment, all supervisors, at least the ones in academia, is a playing-manager, not just a manager. Whether he has the skills to do so or not, he has the obligation to play. Co-authoring his/ her trainee's paper is truly a free lunch and it is off a scientific moral. This is exactly a crack in the system where a culture or a society starts to rot.

Well, what if the professor truly did contribute 50% or more just as a colleague would-- that IS indeed a coauthor.

And if, "a sole-author paper by a trainee may very well be passed over, "  implies that THAT is the reason. So, conversely, an established professor's work will be accepted.  That may  be exactly true.  There are SOOO many bad, poor published articles in journals (85%) and all it takes is to be a professor and not a "trainee," that would explain it.

@Susumu´s remarks caused me to look back in may paper "history". All my papers as nuclear physicist showed always the contributing scientists. And of course, because the leading professor was engaged in all our researches- we were a real team- this professor was coauthor.

My conclusion is, that Susumus voting in general is wrong. And please read the recent comment of Mary-Helen, she is using exactly my arguments.

Yes, Professor should be co-author in a student work to whom he guided or jointly worked. It is a joint contribution. In majority of cases guide will give proper shape to the research paper to be submitted. I am agree with Dr Anderson and Dr Susumu on this aspect.

Perhaps the answer is this: some journals request that all authors list their actual contribution (full review, minor edit, provided original data, reviewed statistics, moderated conclusions/recommendations by providing additional journal resources, co-research, original research question, wrote introduction section on 'whatever' etc.).  However, most students do not know the proper channels regarding where their articles should be published and therefore depend on the knowledge of professors to become published.  Also, without backing from a senior academic representative, even well-researched, well-written, strong papers may not get published because of the lack of name recognition. Mentorship, even brief moments of support/review, can prevent beginners' mistakes and this inherently has value for the student. But as long as academia runs on numbers, there may not be an easy solution for students who have original ideas, do their own research, write their own papers but still require the necessary vetting to advance it through the current system. Of course, this has value and the way to do this is to acknowledge through co-authorship as a professional courtesy.  After all, they are offering their name and credibility and probably had some role in teaching methodology or writing techniques that pointed the student in the proper direction. What I will conclude with is this: since becoming a sole author, I have taken the time to acknowledge guidance from helpful editors if I know their name or mention assistance in some concept that has contributed to the success of the article. This is also part of extending professional courtesy in an industry where networking reigns supreme. But I think that there should be general guidelines for mentors regarding student authorship:  original content and ideas should require that the student be the point of contact and not the professor. I say this because there are some ethical considerations when the document is presented to those journals where the article is 'pay for' and the primary author should retain rights to those funds even if it is the student. There are also some long-term repercussions for Graduate Researchers who come up with original ideas, create presentations, and journal articles that are later revised but published without credit or payment for other than hourly work when that work results in patents or some other form of payment. I think another area is this:  when you give someone honorary co-authorship, do they get to present the material as their own?  Can they make money on the student's concept?    So you see, this question becomes relevant not only in the short-term but in the long-term.  Ethics in each University and the departments should dictate protocols and students should be made aware of them so that both sides (student/mentor) are properly protected.   

Yes they should publish together and i would not recommend the undergrads (until unless they are potentially strong in subject). But at masters level is a good start to learn to draft a research paper and start your manuscript drafting and editing skills. During PhD is the place where you will learn to develop better skills and do less mistakes in drafting and editing. Having both mentor and student on paper is important. Student should always be given first authors and mentor as corresponding authors. It doesn't matter how much contribution was made from each other to the final manuscript and i personally feel this is publishing ethics. But after doctoral studies as postdoc/research associate etc.. everything will change !!!

Dear prof V.S Muralidharan,

You were quite laconic.

What does it mean that the project belongs to you? Many people think if they can get money – I do not know how – the project is their and they do not contribute intellectually to it.

To have a PhD student is only a simple fact. The question is how the supervisor contributes to the activity of the PhD student?

Yes they can. Professors actually guide the students and they have major role in designing of experiment or project on which student works. Professors always have some contribution in student`s work in either way.

Dear All,

I have announced 116 theses (at MSc level) suggestions. These contain the title and the subject. Certainly, I explain and suggest the methodology and the evaluation of data even I calculate the statistics for the results, not to speak on other correction tasks. I think this is my work.

Dear Prof. John!

I have believed that the co-authors of a publication should be effectively all those participants who engaged in a direct way with the research. At my university, we require that, for example, papers relating to theses and dissertations are published in co-authorship with students. Moreover, unless some restriction of the journal, the first author must be the student. In other papers, if undergraduate students were engaged in the research, they should also be coauthors. It is a matter of academic justice, or fair play,  in my opinion. I know there are opposing opinions, but this is my truth. A hug, claus

Yes they should do so and in all levels, as this might encourage others to build a culture of research in all levels and groups.

If I may add that nothing is really black and white in this area.  In fact, most is very grey.  For example, though I recommend that students be placed as lead and corresponding author, my first paper did not follow this suggestion. I was listed as lead author and named him the corresponding co-author. Why?  Because the professor/co-author was part of the editorial committee on the journal to which I was submitting. Further, though I had presented 3 complete sections and outlined the 4th and 5th, his resource recommendations were vital to making a complete article.  Also, relationships form during this time and you will find that small concessions out of respect may garner long-term benefits that are more important than what percentage of contribution occurred.  Re: pay for status.  Down the line, funds from this 'pay for' article were actually used towards editing my dissertation. Here is another topic of interest--if you edit a paper to make it publishable, including the addition of resources, should you get co-authorship even if you are paid for editing?  

Writing a paper is a process of hard work, doing experiments, carry out field work, collect and analysis data, collaboration, knowledge, experience, knowing the state-of-art on the topic, getting advises, ... Can a student by him/herself do all of these without the help of his/her mentor?If he/she knew "do it yourself" or "how to do it' why he/she attend courses in university?, why he/she tries to find a good supervisor? 

This question reminded me of age-old jock "What Came First, the Chicken or the Egg?"

M Omid: Of course, no one is saying otherwise.  Having said and in agreement to what you say, does the prof/supervisor/advisor become coauthor for the student's published work?  I;m guessing you will say yes, then is the student primary or?

How is this a chicken/egg situation?

Dear John

It is certainly possible. The student's name should be the first and one of the functions of the professor  is to stimulate scientific production. There is nothing more stimulating than a student having a published paper  with the professor

Thank you, Nelson.  I had the pleasure and privilege of knowing and working with such professors.  Rather than out for credit, they always had their students be first author, for their own work. And yes, it was to help the student and it was very stimulating.

Yes, why not. As long as the professor has had  a scientific significant contribution, s/he can jointly publish papers with students. Whose name goes first, this depends on the contribution rate, and also on the research system and instructions of the university.

professor level   he/ she should write classical reviews/ books

individual author papers

( i wrote 3 reviews single author - 10 double authored)

I'm sorry, no I haven't read every quote everyone has contributed, but please, I'm not saying a co-authorship is total falsement. I did say "I vote NO to co-authorship," but this is meant to be a bad tasting medicine, not something that I prefer as it to be personaly as well. Of course as anyone as you maybe, if you think you've given contribution of a certain degree, you'ld want your name in the author list. So do I. But Mary-Helen, the SOOO bad papers being published (I agree with 85%) is not necessarily because of a young researcher or trainee himself. I'm afraid to say but I believe it true that some well careered researchers also pay a role on making one. Plus, don't forget, it's not only a matter of the writer, the reviewer and editors play a big part in these publishment. I totally understand that ones effort and contribution is a great deal of matter, no one wants to give someone one a free lunch. But, I wanted to point out the role of a supervisor as a teacher and a mentor. If ones job is to create (

Dear Sir,

Being a mentor, every Professor should get an authorship with his/her student’s research work. Sometimes, students do not able to explain the experimental results of their research work, then a positive discussion between them (Guide and students) provide a better solution.

Apart from this, teacher also helps in many ways like editing contents, polishing language, value addition, well explanation of results and discussion etc.

In this perspective, the knowledge/experience of teachers must be credited by giving authorship in research papers. But, student should be given first authorship followed by their Supervisor name etc.

And if any teacher will not get authorship in research paper, why he/she should help in conducting research work for a students, who perhaps do not know the ABCD of research ? 

I think it is appropriate because it should be part of the mentoring process and provides the students an head start professionally.

@Mary-Helen Castanuela,Thank you for your comment. This is how I do it. Student comes first, supervisor (I) as second author (Corresponding author too) and then the advisers. PHD thesis is a process that student learn a topic, then he/she apply it to his/her PhD project, and after analysis and other things at the end  start to write his/her dissertation and paper(s). During all these period the student is in direct collaboration with supervisor and advisers. Therefore it is a team work.. 

About the jock! I want to say they are almost one for the other and vice versa. Both are necessary and without one the other get to no where!

Unless an undergraduate is strong in the subject & dutiful,normally they are not included.Initially they may be roped in the research work & as they get the feeling of research they may be included.PG & above,students should be encouraged to publish papers,jointly with his guide.The sequence of names could be ascertained with the amount of work put in by students.If the topic is given by the prof. it is fair enough for him that his name appears first,which is usually the case,but in case the work is solely carried out by students,then student's name appearing first encourages them to stick to research. 

What is important is:It is not every one's job to become a researcher,& therefore it would be appropriate that students get their name first.This could ensure that the prof. could get ardent researchers in his new coming research projects.I have seen in many cases that the value of research could not be strengthened just because quality researchers were not available.

I guess it is a matter of where the goal is in a PhD program within reigions (or maybe indivisual?). I thought the goal of a PhD program is to have students get their degree, but that accounts for

*be able to set his own topics and themes,

*be able to conduct it whatever it maybe.

*present it as is to the outer world on their own.

Therefore, I don't give a research theme to my students, I'll be there for them for consultation but not to show them how to yield it or how it could be mended without their asking, and interupt their activity when it is scientifically going in a wrong or bad direction. So publishing a paper of their own topic is a prerequisite in my view. They can see me or anyone else(

Dear All,

I cannot imagine why have been down-voted the comment of Larisa? This is not an objective and polite way of persuading others!

Sir,

Co-authorship of the guide or mentor with research student is ethical at some extent, I mean as far it is concerned to providing guidelines of appropriate methodology to decipher the problem. However, many times it is unethical when data generated by research students is used/ Published on someones credit.        

The role of a supervisor is to guide the student's research work. So as a mentor of the research team (s)he should publish the research results of his lab, if the supervisor writes the paper's content (s)he should add the students' contributions authorship, if the student  publishes his/her work, he/she should add  the supervisor's authorship  contribution  if the supervisor helped in the paper writing content., unless it is preferable that phd students write their research papers by their words and by their selves as well as their thesis to be able to get their recognition as researchers and confirm their diploma

I consider it is a honor for a student adding name of a professor - who is supervisor or adviser or guide for student's research and study has been conducted under his/her supervision. If a student who has conducted a research under close supervision of a professor, and he/she publishes the paper on his/her own is unethical.  

An ancient Chinese adage says that "is preferable not to give one fish to someone, but to learn him how to fish". The same holds here:

The PhD advisor has to learn the student how to publish and not just to publish with him one paper.

I know examples from owners of PhD that their only publication they have done in their entire academic life was that with the supervisor...

It is a sad circumstance...

Supervisor, guide, advisor, these features are no justifying reason to appear on a paper. It must be the real scientific contribution of this person to the results shown in the paper. I call it teamwork.

Professors and supervisors write their papers following the research projects they direct, they should publish their results and their science to get  finantial and academic supports to their labs(which is the natural activity of each lab).  They are usually chiefs of research teams and in each team phd students are associated. So it is natural and ethical that professors add the contribution of their students (as part of the research team work). Students are there to learn the research practice, contribute to the team work by their own results and learn how to write an accepted paper. So to get their diploma recognition they should defend their work by themselves, then it is natural and recommended  to write and defend their papers by themselves too without support of their supervisors. Supervisors, professors, colleagues, technicians...etc could be acknowledge of their help in the acknowledgment section of the papers

I totally agree with @Hanno, where supervisor, guide, advisor are no legitemate reason to be one of the authors on a paper. There must be a real scientific contribution.

Also, Larisa getting downs is only a result of a mechanism of researchgate modeled to somewhat a SNS like web site. I'm not saying that such mechanism is adequate. The only ones who can directly change what goes on, like Larisa's downs, is the operators of researchgate. There the ones who put a down button. A computer can't tell the intention when there is a click. It is sad... lack of technology? or is it a matter of moral? both? I'm sorry I don't have an answer.

I consider the following: If the student works in the scientific problem and he or she contributes to the final answer they can be admitted as co-authors, You may specify the real contribution of each one and it will be easy in spite of other ones that use the students and not contibute with their future curriculum vitae

This is a question that comes up often in graduate studies. Some professors believe it is unethical to attach professors' names to papers prepared for publication, and believe that contributions made by mentoring professors should not be acknowledged in publications, as it is their (faculty) responsibility to steer students toward a publishable paper. Others believe that the individual expertise of  professors regarding topics for publication, documentation of evidence professors may have at hand,  and the time and energy expended  to guide students through the publication process and subsequent edits, suffices to meet any criteria to be co-authors of a published paper.  I agree with the latter belief. If  the amount of input is substantial and not just editorial, professors should be included as co-authors. The placement for authorship is a discussion point that should be addressed early in the process. Personally, I believe that the student should have first authorship if the article topic was generated by the student. If the professor offers the student an opportunity to publish on the professors' research topics, then the professor should be 1st author.  

I also agree with @Hanno, that advisers and professors have not to be part of the students' papers who must defend by themselves their works and diplomas. Professors are able to write their science and the team work results with their language and their philosophy as an added value to the science. It is as well their job to be good advisers for their students. No need  for co authorship for that

The professors are supposed to give in-sight into the research, by virtue of experience and education. So yes their names should appear if the advice is useful to the research work. For names, the student(s) name(s) should be first. Why, the professors had their time for their names to be first. And so we propagate good faith.

One more issue, patents? A fair share for everybody based on numbers only. PS Do not forget the institution and THEIR instruments.

I think the Professor should make the choice of either letting the student's name first or his/her. i see it as a mark of respect for the senior person to make such choice, especially because his/her name constitutes greater value or worth to the work in terms of public perception.

From my experience and understanding, I would say students are encouraged to publish manuscripts with professors who have expertise in the students area of focus.  In regards to who name appears first, it all depends on who contributed the most into the preparation of the manuscript. 

I t is not decent prof should  be the first author

Susumu Morita "But Mary-Helen, the SOOO bad papers being published (I agree with 85%) is not necessarily because of a young researcher or trainee himself. "

Reread my comment, as that is not what I said, in fact, the exact opposite.

Mary-Helen, I get it, yes I perceived your comments 180 deg around. I'm apologize for misreading your comment, a shame fundamental mistake...

If you still feel to discuss and tell me about this issue, then can I ask you back?

You said the exact opposite, now I understand. So, your say is that the absolute majority of the  SOOO bad papers are produced by the trainees or say a young researcher that just started their careers?

Honestly speaking, I'm losing confidence of my view of the academia world wide. Well, I should have known not to generalize things with not sufficient information to determine, and when it's about a global size matter the information required for a fair judgement is pretty large, or probably infinite. The more I read the comments on this issue, the more I'm surprised how the academia in a lot of places or regions are operating properly with honesty and good side of man kind. It seems that I've seem to have encountered some of the most malfunctioning place, or is it the field, or maybe culture,... I can't tell. Of course I can't be in detail about this ( where I think I'm already very much in detail enough to find myself in trouble in the coming few month...) but, there are people in a supervisor position, mostly a PI position, who doesn't teach and mentor his students at all, except to reject any proposition, the draft, anything, if it's the first time, plus without a subjective reason, even when the students proposition makes sense and sounds worth doing or the students draft is sufficiently credible. He/She wont except anything as long as it is not in his/her taste, where the student has no clue how to get there because the student is not given the reason of why he's being rejected. As a result, the student end up just as a factory line worker who occasionally is not in a factory line but in an academic lab. Plus, the student also gets to pay tuition for it. Whenever there is a progress, over 80-90% of it comes from the students work and thinking and ideas. The supervisor's contribution in this case is no more than choosing a theme for the student to work in. Almost all of the outcome of the research conducted is not within the expectation or the foresight of the supervisor, and this continues till a milestone is reached. Is their a contribution of the supervisor? Yes. He raised the money, it's his lab equipments, it's his theme. I just can't find it fair for these people getting away with getting a paper, presentation out with his name in the co-author, and he get's to add an extra line to his CV. I don't see the supervision, mentoring, teaching, the students just get's to pay money to do a job and experience a unlucky situation of the world, and gain nothing else.  The largest force that can stop this phenomena is the good will of the supervisor. Since I can't see it ,  I thought  "divide the teaching role and the scholar role of a supervisor. "  If the supervisor has a worthy contribution which the paper couldn't be written without his/her contribution, then it's totally fine to have his name in the co-author list. I'm troubled with the situation where there isn't any worthy contribution of the supervisor(not even the teaching and mentoring) and he/she still gets their name in the list. I find it a critical moral hazard. I'm just surprised so many people are experiencing a proper functioning academia days, and has such faith in the good will of human.

If you can share just a few line of words how the lab your experiencing is like, then it is my deepest gratitude. I was extremely lucky to get my degree in the most free, fair, strict in terms of work and scientific ethics. I'm just very disappointed and sad how labs in other places can be..

Thanks for replying, and hoping your next reply.

Susumu

I definitely think that professors should publish with students, with credit based on who does the most work, so that person's name should go first.  If there are more than two authors, they should be listed in the order in which they contributed the most.

@Michael,

I think best of your proposal. But in a certain way it´s already practised. Just remember the frequent remarks like "...want to thank my collegues XXX and YYY for fruitful discussions...".

Dear Larisa,

like so often, this joke mirrors the frequent publishing  and "hunting" situation.

GOOD - this is what happening  Larisa Fialkova ·

There is nothing wrong with a student author who gathers (or collects) good (rigorous scientific method respected) data, conducting meticulous research and even aiding in organizing the literature. International regulations permit all supervisors at all levels to initiate or to be part of research publications that reflect their students' work. To me it is common sense that the student's name goes on the publication in proportion with the invested work, for which there are very specific guidelines in every academic field,  publication outlets, and scholastic associations or societies. (However, for simply collecting data, or doing the technical work, a student should not be rewarded with authorship.)

i am for the student as a first author  for  "simply collecting data, or doing the technical work, "

I disagree, because the right for publication should reflect scholastic work / thinking, evaluation, judgment, and also ability to synthesize knowledge with research results. Most studies have qualified technical assistants and yet the technicians do not get authorship. However, if the student has "ideas" and adds to the interpretation of the collected data, or does the write-up - at least in part - as well, then yes authorship based on merit in proportion of contribution should be considered.

Got it prof. Attila. Your comment was great: "To me it is common sense that the student's name goes on the publication in proportion with the invested work". A hug, claus.

Dear @Larisa, I presume if there was Prof. Whale among them then probably swallowed all and could publish as a single author.

Let me know change the topic to something more serious. I saw some statistics more important than author's running list. For every paper published, there's a story behind it. There are a lot of scientific papers out there. One estimate puts the count at 1.8 million articles published each year, in about 28,000 journals. Who actually reads those papers? According to one 2007 study, not many people: half of academic papers are read only by their authors and journal editors, the study's authors write! In the 2007 study, the authors introduce their topic by noting that “as many as 50% of papers are never read by anyone other than their authors, referees and journal editors.” They also claim that 90% of papers published are never cited. 

Quality paper comes from qualified experts.

Ok, but who approves paper without proper quality? The quality is independent of the fact that one of the coauthors be a student or not. The research group is that it needs to produce qualified papers.

Really! "The quality is independent of the fact that one of the coauthors be a student or not." Definitely, the supervisor who has knowledge and is fully aware of the state-of-art on the subject has more quality to check (if the contents are up to standards or not) than a student who is going to publish his/her first paper. Dont you think so. When a team work on a paper everyone can add some quality to the final draft. They are involved by reading and editing the paper many times before it is submitted. All these reduce the possible errors.

So the ideal line up for authorship should be (The way I am doing it):

student, supervisor, adviser

is supervisor is not the adviser? Funny---

With over 80 replies to this question, a number of writings that question the co-authorship of the supervisor seems to be on verge. I've read all the answers and I think we're arguing with two major questions, which constitutes the original;

1. the appropriate way or a protocol of how authorship and contribution should be evaluated.

2. why will it always work in an appropriate manner other than good will? what is out there to stop or work as a deterrence of miss use, like no idea, no work, no analysis, no editing, no mentoring, and get his/her name on the paper due to him/she being a supervisor?

These must be considered with the fact that their is no realistic way or any deterrence strong enough to stop the wrong happenings like Mr. Hale, Ms. Wolf, Dr. Bear, Prof. Whale story situation. Would we have an answer to the original question if we can get an agreed answer for the above 1. and  2.? 

The majority here is talking about only the ideal, and it seems that some grouping could be done. But, I'm rather worried about the miss usage of this "privilege" of co-authorship. Is it adequate to evaluate Prof. Whale as a contributor? What is or is not a contribution? Who decides and stops the miss usage of someone's power?

There has always been a protocol on contributions and authorship in every institution I was involved in. But none was totally subjective and always relied on human good will. I worry about the vulnerability of the protocol now. I really demand  aｎ apparent, no double understanding, objective protocol that works internationally.

A thesis supervisor is a formally designated faculty member who accepts responsibility for helping you with your thesis by providing research advice and direction. He or she helps you in the research process from research topic development all of the way through to the formal defence of your thesis. Nowadays, we carry out multidisciplinary project thesis that requires other experts from our own department or other departments or even professors from other countries. I call these added faculty members of student's thesis as advisers to distinguish them from student's main supervisor. What you call them Prof V.S Muralidharan?Seriously---

Dear Dr. Morita:  This, your comment: " So, your say is that the absolute majority of the SOOO bad papers are produced by the trainees or say a young researcher that just started their careers?"    is NOT what I said at all.  i was responding to the comments that a student or trainee's paper will be passed over and not published,  BECAUSE he/she is just a student.  Therefore, the advisor, who is an experienced professor, helps the student by getting the (student's) paper published and thus, the experienced professor should be first author.  In other words, because it is by virtue of being such, an experienced well-know professor, the student/trainee will get published instead of being passed over.

I responded and here it what I said:

"And if, "a sole-author paper by a trainee may very well be passed over, " implies that THAT is the reason. So, conversely, an established professor's work will be accepted. That may be exactly true. There are SOOO many bad, poor published articles in journals (85%) and all it takes is to be a professor and not a "trainee," that would explain it."

Meaning that if a paper is passed over by publisher simply and only because the author is "merely" a trainee, without consideration for the content, quality, or serious consideration of the written paper's merit, than the opposite is also true. Meaning that a publisher will accept and publish a paper,  based solely on the name of an author who is an experienced professor, again,  without consideration for the content, quality, or serious consideration of its merit, then that is why so many published articles are poor.  To put it another way, "experienced professor" is not the sole criteria for a good quality paper; so many an experienced professor can get a poor paper published because a publishers will NOT pass over a paper submitted by an experienced professor; which would help to explain why 85% of published articles are bad.

I hope this clears THAT  up.

To your other discussion, I both sympathize and empathize with you.  If you saw my very first response to this question, I said that if a student is a coauthor with his/her professor/supervisor, at least the student is getting SOME credit.  I added that it appeared that everyone commenting was in an ideal institutions with ideal (good, ethical) colleagues, because NOONE was willing to discuss that fact that many a supervisor, simply takes his students' work and publishes as hi/her own, in other words, steals the student's work.  Over hers, (US) it  happens all the time.

Many times, it is economics, MONEY.  As a student and a beginning researcher,  I witnessed the following several times.  The PI got the grant/funding, without having done any of the work, EXCEPT given his/her name to the project.  The PI has an idea, a few sentences, and the rest, from lit review, to grant writing, analysis, to WRITING the final paper is done by a team of others, yet the PI is the primary author, very often with as many as 10 "co-authors,"  ANYONE on the team who worked on the project.  This is a common practice and I learned that "author" in journal articles  does not necessarily mean that such an "author" has written a single word of the article. 

I do not know if anyone has mentioned THIS situation. (RG changes the order of answers, so I seem to miss some-- very frustrating!)

I have witnessed (once or twice, so maybe it is rare??) a professor, without any supervisory or advisor position, asks/invites a student in his/her course, who has written a paper that "fits" into the professors work, to collaborate on his/her (the professor's) work and publish a paper together.  In this instance, the professor makes it clear that he/she will be first author.  Although the student does a lot of the work, even some writing, the professor writes the final paper that  is submitted.

I  hope this is clear

Thank you Mary-Helen Castanuela, and yes the above CLEARED it up a lot. I totally missed your conditions only if the people, the environment, the situation is all ideal, ethically good. My bad habit of getting boiled up before finishing, and my sincere apologies. I'm sorry for misunderstanding  your writing.

Plus, thank you so much for sharing your witnessing incidents. As someone said earlier that no black and white in this area, everything is to some extent gray. But my student years, I recall it very very very close to white kind of grey. Merely, no one on the team looked unsatisfied with how they were treated in case of paper publishing. But now....oh my, I can only say that I've witnessed a grey case extremely close to black. I don't know when you learned that "author" in journal articles does not necessarily mean that such "author" hardly gave anything to the article. As for me,... even considering that I had been outside of academia for sometime right after I got my degree, I only came aware of it only just a few years ago. So recent that I thought of writing it in months. I, at first, was scared of this reality. But it's how it is. So I was encouraged to read that there are other people that have witnessed this kind of incident.

Mary-Helen Castanuela, what you just posted...I guess I haven't seen anything yet. Your story is definitely more crucial than the worst ones I've known...

I have a feeling that this question is far fetched now. There are international (and field / outlet specific) guidelines for eligibility for authorship on a scholastic publication. Now, regardless whether one of the contributors is a student, graduate student, or simply the owner of the grocery store, as long as her/his contribution meets the scientific and publication criteria for an authorship the person should be a co-author!

Your saying how it should be. The question asks how do we do to make it the "should be" case. The question was given because she was lost with the guidelines. If you shut it by telling to stick with the guideline, then she's left where exactly where she started. It's definitely a good thing to follow the guideline in a ideal situation. Now, even if the case is not the ideal, a case where it's unethical, the guideline still comes first? She's asking, where is it that the line should be between a contribution and just a simple chat. If you answer back with the explanation constituted by the word contribution, then everyone gets no where.

Well 90?th comment here...? It's natural someone gets tired...

Attila - well said !

There are clear and agreed international guidelines on what constitutes authorship.  'Supervisors' are PAID to supervise, & this includes any help with advice, writing, reviewing or publishing. Only when they meet the full criteria of authorship should they be listed as an author. Otherwise, give them due acknowledgement in the acknowledgement section.  Authorship listing is not a right, an expectation or something that can be claimed for carrying out tasks in a paid role.  If pay & satisfaction are not enough, then it is either time to renegotiate your contract, or find a job (because supervising is a vocation).

For all of those taking a 'traditionally, we do this' stance: read some (current) ethics books, read some guidelines that have been accepted by the international community, & accept that unless you make a significant individual contribution to both the article & topic under consideration, you are simply fulfilling your PAID role in supporting students in producing papers.

Perhaps it is time to move into the current age where expertise and position should be demonstrated, not presumed.  For those who claim that students cannot get published alone, 'expert' professors always get published (so their name 'helps' the student & this is why they are to be listed as an author) ....  please cite some concrete evidence to support this ... meme.

John - I have to disagree with many of the traditionally rooted issues you raise.  In this modern day & age, there are no accepted guidelines which describe, advocate, or authorise a 'senior author position'. As to being entitled to authorship because a 'trainee conducted the research in the supervisor's lab using their resources' - I doubt very much if the supervisor has any individual ownership of either - they belong to the institution and are there to benefit more than one person. You are right about professors not being  expected to give students help without recognition, but the accepted place for this is in the acknowledgement section - teaching faculty are PAID to help.  If we take your view that listing the 'expert' professors name will help get the paper published (even though they may not have sullied their hands with 'grunt' work), then this is further evidence that we are misunderstanding the principles of authorship, not to mention the ethics and responsibilities of paid professional practice. Again, unless a person has contributed fully to all aspects of authorship, then they must go in the acknowledgements section.

All of these points are covered in published guidelines on authorship, guidelines for professional practice (e.g. teaching) etc., so I think any arguments raised against them should also be evidence-based.  You mention the 'power balance' - whilst this may have been so in the past, transparent practice and wider opinion have led (IMO) to a situation where students & faculty alike can expect a fair approach to be taken in situations such as these.

A university is known by its staff (Professors, actually). Without them there would be no university, no students and no PAPERS at all! In simple word, the heart of the system is governed by supervisor and not students. 

No professor may have  ideas  - in fact every  one   - it is  students who convert ideas into experiments and reality

There is something unclear somewhere. If a thesis (to be accepted) is assessed and evaluated by a  panel of experts from internal and external members of and from the university, that means the student and his/her supervisor are evaluated for the research subject conducted by the student and directed by his/her professor.

A student paper and a research paper are totally different. The first is a compilation of the thesis topic and the second is the development of the research project . A research project  could associate several theses issues, and a professor could supervises more than one thesis topic. So it is unclear that the professor could be co author of a student paper (since the student must defend his/her thesis alone). However as the professor should publish (which is his/her professional natural activity) his work and the team's work under his/her direction, he/she should associate the students' works (if successful) and cite them as coauthors of the research paper.

Mahmoud - this is very true, but the students will be the future professors. If we take a student-centred approach to teaching (of course, I am not talking about the research-specific aspects of our institutions), then it will hopefully put the practice of authorship and publication in a more transparent & streamlined form for the future.

This is a subject that has been plagued by ethics issues.  First, my belief is that we should encourage our Ph.D. students to rework their dissertations into an article for publication.  When that happens the student should be the lead author if the professor works on the article with the student and deserves co-authorship.  If the professor does not contribute meaningfully in changing the dissertation to an article, the professor's name should not be included.  Second, once our students begin the publication process on their own promotion and tenure life, the two professors may have a common area of interest and publish together especially at the mentee's assistant professor level.  Once the mentee goes up for full professor one would expect the mentor's name to be second on a substantial number of publications if they are still writing together.

got it prof. William: I agree with you.

Dear John. You have raised another important question and the comments you have received seem to point out to two main positions: one in favor of joined publication and one against it because of possible ethical implications. I would suggest that there is no one answer to your question. In our context (Masters in English as a foreign language) students are aware, from the very beginning, that throughout their studies they will be required to show their academic literacy in English, that is, appropriate language for oral presentations, class discussions, short reading reports, papers, among others, and finally the masters thesis. But they are also told that they will be given the opportunity to publish an article about their research with the help of their tutor. This is not compulsory. The tutor has accompanied the student throughout the theoretical and methodological stages of the research and also the writing process. if the student chooses to publish an article with the tutor, both names are included in the publication. This is the practice in the three Masters programs of our Linguistics Department. To my knowledge it is practiced in all areas of humanities in our faculty. The bottom line is that the answer to your question will depend on academic practices in the disciplines within a particular culture. My two cents on this. Kind regards.

No, I don't recommend it because the student(s) will get to do the 'donkey work' while the professor will get a free ride. Some professors may even give assignments to the students with this very aim in mind. In our culture, it will also erode the required social distance between the professor and the student(s).