One of the most common questions I am asked, and that I hear being discussed in doctoral and ECR support groups, is whether to write with supervisors and former supervisors. Or most often, I read on social media about problems that come from writing with supervisors and former supervisors. Now, in some disciplines writing with a supervisor is not unusual. PhDers are expected to publish and they write under the close direction of their supervisor. And of course many PhDs by publication allow at least one paper to be co-written with the supervisor. This co-writing is intended to be a learning process where the more experienced supervisor teaches the PhDer about publishing practices through co-authoring. However, it is equally important for the Phder/postPhDer to write by themselves. This is part of the process of becoming a scholar and building a scholarly identity. When you write a paper, or lead the writing of a paper, you are not simply learning how to be a scholar, you are acting as one. And seeing your first paper or your first lead paper in print is always a moment to celebrate. You and everyone else position you as an academic author. But the questions I get, and stories I read, are often about when a learning and/or leading writing situation is rocky. It’s always a PhDer or an immediate post PhDer writing one or more papers that come directly from their PhD. And very often a former supervisor demands to be listed as an author, even though they’ve done none of the writing. They haven’t been involved in discussing the paper, they haven’t given feedback. They’ve simply assumed and/or asserted that it’s their right to be listed as author. Or perhaps the supervisor has done a little bit of the work and then demands to be first author. This behaviour is all kinds of wrong. And don’t just take my word for this. There are now any number of organisations which have outlined what it takes to have authorial credit. They all agree that to be credited as an author you need to have done some actual work. If, then, you are asked to include a supervisor who has done nothing on the paper, the first thing is that you need to know is how the scholarly community currently sees authorship. This is one version of how authorship credit is generally understood. You get to be an author if you meet ALL of the following conditions. You have: These criteria still require interpretation – this is why it is common for co-authoring teams to discuss authorship as well as protocols for author order. Asking for or giving credit where it’s not warranted happens for several reasons. Perhaps the author of the paper wants to include the supervisor because they feel they couldn’t have got to where they are without them, or they think that it will be an advantage to have them on the paper – their name will attract readers and citations. Or perhaps the supervisor has made it clear that they think they ought to be credited and/or they need the publications in order to maintain their job or get promotion and/or they are trying to improve their h-index and/or their institution expects them to publish with PhDers.  There are certainly other variations on these. But, regardless of the reasons why a supervisor asks or demands to be co-author, it’s not OK. The practice is commonly known as courtesy or gift authorship. While gifting authorship may have once been widespread, it is now generally frowned upon.

Yale University’s explanation of gift authorship sums up the reasons why it is not OK:

If you are asked by a former supervisor to include them as author, you generally can’t ignore it. It’s Ok to feel conflicted and/or afraid and/or cross that you’ve been put in this position. The most common advice that I see given in these circumstances is not to give in but politely but firmly inform the supervisor of the commonly agreed ethical position on authorship, using resources like the ones I have used in this post. And you may be able to get some immediate support from within your institution, or from support groups on social media platforms. I would also take the precaution of documenting everything. There is always a chance that the supervisor will take your firm no badly, and the relationship you have with them will be damaged. Remember that it is their action that has brought this about, not yours. If they try to exert more pressure, then it is possible that you may have to take further action, if ignoring their further requests/demands doesn’t work. Again hang onto the fact that it is their problem, not yours, and that refusal is the right thing to do.  A worst case scenario is that it comes to a formal complaint. If this happens, your institution and theirs will have documented procedures and ways for you to get assistance in complaining. There are of course infinite variations on the gift authorship scenario I have outlined. COPE, the Committee on Publication Ethics, has a very useful collection of cases of authorship problems which are well worth checking out. This is the first in a little series on authoring. The next post is on author order. Additional  resources: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Defining the role of authors and contributors Co Authorship in the Humanities and Social Sciences: Taylor and Francis and Professor Bruce Macfarlane. A global aurvey and discussion of practices and issues Australian Code for the responsible conduct of research Advice for new researchers on handling authorship disputes – available to COPE members only, so ask your university library how to access.