Funding, supervision, discussion, lab infrastructure, essentially the entire project is usually initiated and maintained by the supervisor – no matter how independent the student works, even if the student contributes the essential ideas. Furthermore, the project is usually linked to the lab/supervisor. When the student leaves, the project will mostly be continued in the supervisor’s lab and not by the student.

I believe that we have a very good publication system in biosciences: students need first authorships for their reputation, supervisors want last authorships for their reputation. Everyone knows what the positions in the author list mean.

Funding is based on publications. As a supervisor, you become an administrator and grant writer – these are the consequences of the German university system. If supervisors would only publish their own experimental work – there would be essentially nothing – and no funding at all.

By no means I argue for “honorary authorships” by a department director who may not even know the student!

Here is an example:

As a postdoc I developed a subproject together with a co-postdoc that we secretly pursued without knowledge of the supervisor. When the data were compiled, we had to “confess”. The paper was published – the supervisor was last author and we had absolutely no problem with this. Without the lab, the funding and the scientific infrastructure we would have never been able to do this work. (Probably we would not have been able to publish it in a high impact journal without the supervisor – but that is a different story.)

Funding, supervision, discussion, lab infrastructure, essentially the entire project is usually initiated and maintained by the supervisor – no matter how independent the student works, even if the student contributes the essential ideas. Furthermore, the project is usually linked to the lab/supervisor. When the student leaves, the project will mostly be continued in the supervisor’s lab and not by the student.

I believe that we have a very good publication system in biosciences: students need first authorships for their reputation, supervisors want last authorships for their reputation. Everyone knows what the positions in the author list mean.

Funding is based on publications. As a supervisor, you become an administrator and grant writer – these are the consequences of the German university system. If supervisors would only publish their own experimental work – there would be essentially nothing – and no funding at all.

By no means I argue for “honorary authorships” by a department director who may not even know the student!

Here is an example:

As a postdoc I developed a subproject together with a co-postdoc that we secretly pursued without knowledge of the supervisor. When the data were compiled, we had to “confess”. The paper was published – the supervisor was last author and we had absolutely no problem with this. Without the lab, the funding and the scientific infrastructure we would have never been able to do this work. (Probably we would not have been able to publish it in a high impact journal without the supervisor – but that is a different story.)

In my case dear @Nicholas, there was no any obligation toward the academic supervisor, nor he did expect anything in terms of recognition/remuneration! Such policy should be considered as bribe.

After my thesis was defended, I did publish some papers which was matter of my free will, there was no impact of supervisor, and he was the coauthor of the papers!

So how about cases where the student needs help in writing at a higher international level, submitting & getting papers accepted, attending conferences etc? It is often the supervisors who take this on, but many are saying that this is an 'extra' role & is not accounted for in their work remit (e.g. reserved time to review, edit and process papers, or provide academic support). These functions are of course due acknowledgement in any published work, but as others have said, 'authorship' seems to be the only worthwhile currency, as it boosts the supervisors/departments publications & gives more funding potential (as Wolfgang mentions above).

Students can expect support (IMO), but supervisors also have to be able to focus on their own present and forthcoming research projects - generating work & revenue.  What exactly is in the role of the supervisor & how is it expressed in the job description (as opposed to what just 'happens') ?

The whole range of issues of supervisor are treated in the following chapter The Role of the Supervisor! I find this reading very useful!

@Ian Kennedy stated under the thread attached: "If the supervisor only provides funding and equipment the supervisor's name must not appear in an author line." Very true! Link follows!

https://www.researchgate.net/post/The_role_of_doctorate_students_in_enhancing_their_supervisors_research_standing

@Ljubomir, I'm confused, not understanding everyone's writings, I find here a just criteria of co-authorship that kind of conflicts: what is your say about Wolfgang's example of the project iniciated plus carried solely by students using the lab facility? Thank god things went sooth "confessing" to the supervisor and the publishing afterwards... Also, what if the supervisor demanded something inacceptable for the students/staffs (ones that came up with and carried out everything all the way to a nice worthy results but did not get the infrastructure required for the already-done activity), for example, a publication under the supervisor's first author or worse his indipendent authorship? Of course such case will probably catch a majority saying it is totally unethical, ill doing, but who's going to restrict these things of happening and how can it be done? Yes, the students can call a responsible section for the matter doing the "whisttle-blowing" on their own. But imagine an awkward drama that potentially could go on, and then can you imagine the students staying in the same lab, position afterwards? If any part of a designed prevention system works ethical, just, then there's a chance that things will come out fine. But my concern is, what if every single guideline is operated not in the spirit of the system all the way to the final step? The only garrantee I find anywhere is that any and all scholars are born with good will of humanity. This is hardly a fail safe.  

What if the supervisor is called to give an invited talk about this complete secret project? Yes, he had nothing to give to the project activity but, all was carried out on tke equipments that he got by his grant. It was hidden to him from planning to end but, maybe the two students inspiration was from the supervisor's simple words. What's fagr to do here? Fine if the institution defines the codes, whether it's fair to everyone or not, like a public company. The institution will probably lose a lot of talents for it. It's ok for the supervisors because he/she is a member, a worker there. But what about the students? For them, being an apprentice to someone is a pure investment for his/her futre. Is it ok for there future to be blown away not because of their fault? Is it that the fact that they kept the project secret from their supervisor is the wrong doing, so be it that they take the heat? No one can predict the future but what if one of the key to success was that they kept it to themselves allowing the project to be touched only by the young and not-so-experienced so that they could stay bold enough not to be chained to common understanding that is exactly what they had to turn it upside-down? Last years' Nobel Prize of Physics, the blue LED owes fist to a master student doing his daily experiment despite finding the heater of the crystalization chamber in malfunction but just went on with the process since he had nothing else to do. This was absolutely not under the supervision of his teacher. Secondly, the mass production, firm and long lasting crystalization of the NGa semiconductive matter was created by a researcher in a private company that denied to help him out on carring forward the project after being funded for a start-up from the very founder of the company who was pushed out of the company shortly after. The fellow had no money to buy new instruments, so he made all on his own from what he found in the company's junk yard. After his success, the company grew up to about 10 times the revenue and the size taking all the advantage of his achievement, and all he got was some 50,000JPY bonus. He sued the company afterwards and got a lot more, but it was clearly noted in law that the patent belonged to him. Of couse, he and the company knew the impact of this development, but didn't seem to me at all the company was fair to him. What is right? What is just? What is fair?

Just a clarification:

This thread is not aimed to continue the disputes of fairness or injustice which have been evident in other threads 😱 It simply looks to explore what supervisors feel is expected of them (by their institutions and students), how they integrate this with the many other tasks they undertake,  & how they feel they are rewarded or accommodated in their efforts  🎓

@Nicholas, my appologies for my inadequate input.

I'm still concerned about the thread topic. I wish this will contribute.

Here's my suggestions to what must be clarified.

First, if the supervisor or the institute is to get a tuition from outside the institution, then what is it payed for? What actions from the institution does the tuition stand for?

Secondly, when a student is payed a salary from the lab, then what is it payed against? When the contract says that the labor also stands for supervision and mentoring, then the labor may go limitless since mentoring and supervising can't be quantified.

Thirdly, a personal wonder. Maybe it is no longer adequate to mix R&D and education due to the develcopment of science and technology. Mixing the two maybe too complicated nowadays.

I don't have oppinions or answers to my proposal.

Tuition fees are another, separate and very touchy story.

At least in Germany, research is mostly done by “education”: there are essentially no “grown-up” researchers in the laboratories except for MSc students and PhD students and maybe some postdocs. By the German system they are considered to work for their “qualification” (which means they are not yet qualified according to the official rules!). At the same time the universitiesrequire that they do “independent research” but do not provide any funding for buying a primer or an enzyme. This is a contradiction.

Let’s face it: publication is all about money! The lab (supervisor) gets funding when they publish good work (work being done by students – I prefer the term “co-workers”) and the lab can hire more students and buy supplies. We have no system where a MSc or PhD student can apply for a salary, equipment and supplies when she/he has a good research idea (there are stipends – but this does not help to carry out research). The German system now strengthens grant applications by fresh PhDs.

If successful, these young PhDs are supposed to join a lab that supports them (in their independent research!). From what money? Of course from the grants that the supervisor obtained from his/her own projects (carried out and published with his/her students) because there is no other source.

And here is the next twist in the story:

Journals require to mention funding. What about a statement: this work was funded by a grant XXX to A.B. – but A.B. is not an author. Did the grant holder embezzle the funding by giving it to another person?

There are good and bad supervisors out there. Many of them work on the verge of legality (in terms of making funds available) – for the benefit of their co-workers.

We may need to re-define “independent research” but that also would mean to restructure the entire funding system – forget it!

@Wolfgang, I didn't know the German system to that depth. It's very different from that of the system in Japan. But the probable case is it comes to a common reality; funding. I hoped for a much better system out somewhere but... let's face it, yeah your right, we're all only given around 30 years time. It surely doesn't seem like a 5 year project and done! Kind of deal.

What should be  the bottom line, but realistic obligations? Not just a term "supervising", what should be the content of it? Honestly, I'm giving out so much of my time that I not catching up with the things necessary to keep the lab on the run but student's questions are still increasing. Salary raise won't increase my one day time... A recognition increase may increase my chance of getting the fund, but it's only a chance increase. A matter of probability...

In our department, collaboration between supervisor and graduate student is strongly encouraged. As such, the superviosr is most times the second author at least for the student's first publication. We also have a separate fund that provides financial awards for both student and supervisor to conduct and publish research together.

Best regards,

Debra

I strongly feel the need that how the ideal should be is not enough to close these arguments. Right action based purely on the individual who implements it has holes for malfunction. If there is no debate about the mechanism

A half of my entry was omitted:

If this thread's sole purpose is to clearlify or find out what is or should be the role and job of a supervisor, then my fomer input is not in the scope so I take it back, just to state that I have no intention to disrespect anyone. I'm just hoping for a more healthy academia.  

Aside this, aren't there way too much of tasks and chors and a burden for professors, more severely if they were a supervisor? It seems to me as infeasable. I think this stands for many senior manegers and executives in private sectors as well. But there's a prominent difference as in companies, executives can dismiss a personel if the staff's capacity is way below the required level. I've never seen such thing happening in my country. Nor do I not know if such is allowed against PhD students.