This was another interesting case study I was reminded of after critically debating the rights and responsibilities of graduate students / faculty mentors, and recent responses to another case study.
In this case, tentative publications were listed out and one effort was identified to be the responsibility of a the primary investigator, i.e. mentor. However, the mentor over time was identified as being lazy even among colleagues and never followed through with developing a manuscript. Further, the mentor even requested to not be reminded of the commitment! What does a student do given these circumstances? Early publications can be important and even tallied by potential hire(s). Timeliness, demonstration of team work, and breadth of research effort outcomes are related facets of this case study.
Lio Moscardini , this sounds like a very reasonable answer. However, a lesser prominent case is when mentors or academic leader(s) are not following the mission of higher education institution(s). It seems to me that there is an era of established academics that believe that their actions are without question and no matter what they do, they can not be questioned.
I think it is widely accepted that students acting on their own accord is a traditionally strong academic characteristic. However, if mentor-mentee discord occurs, mentors can utilize their position, leveraging un-importance of commitments.
Lio Moscardini , my response to you is that the purpose of this question is not based on the common sense of what we expect, but the nuances of abusive practices and therefore requires a more critical evaluation.
Dear Cory,
This is a difficult question because there are always power inbalances that you have to consider, whether you like it or not. Formally speaking, I would recommend to follow internal rules and regulations at the research school. for instance, we have clear rules for being a co-author in our institution, in which for instance arranging the funding is 'not' a ground for co-authorship, while actual writing activities, cocreation of the core idea of the argument, involvement in data collection etc. are mentioned as good grounds for coauthorship. In my view, if a mentor is 'not' involved in any legitimate activity that legitimizes co-authorship, as your case suggest, I would not adopt him/her as coauthor. It is also part of good project management to confront colleagues with the formal rules of the institution. I do understand this might have negative consequences as well of course.
Hope this helps,
vincent blok
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics