cantusacredula

Thanks for all the tips! In my gut, I've always felt that I needed to include them. Although I've had a few close friends, who are in my field, tell me not to include them, I think that advice is coming from their personal relationship to me and an emotional reaction to the situation. It definitely helps to get some thoughts from other people. Just as an aside, re: Takeruk 's comment : When my supervisor wanted to write up a portion of the data into a paper with another prof (because this small portion is very interesting and they didn't want to wait until the full sample was analysed), they asked me for permission first (although I think this was just to be polite -- they didn't have to!) and let me know why they wanted to write this paper sooner and addressed any concerns I might have had about it potentially undermining my future, fuller, paper. This is what I would have expected to happen in this situation - I think my advisors wanted to get out a quick paper on the most interesting aspect of the data that would come out of these samples. I also think Advisor 1 wanted Advisor 2's name recognition, because of her standing in our field and on this topic (yet, at the same time, this very sexy aspect of the research is what sold me on the project when Advisor 1 pitched the idea to me - I knew he wasn't just going to give me that topic wholeheartedly to publish on all on my own, but I didn't expect to be cut out of that aspect completely). I've just always been confused as to why they didn't inform me of their project, at least before it was in press, and/or why they didn't ask me to be a part of it. I analyzed about 10 X as many samples as Advisor 2 did for their paper, and that extra data would have strengthened their argument. I may not have been a rock-star graduate student, but I had a good relationship with my advisors/profs, did well in their classes, was right on track with my thesis... I can't quite figure out what the cost would have been to them, except that the citation would appear as "Advisor 1, et. al 2012" instead of "Advisor 1 & Advisor 2 2012". And it has certainly been detrimental to me, their student - the whole affair just stinks. Now I'm just venting about the past, though! I do appreciate all the comments and advice! Thanks --

Hi, thanks for the reply - these are good questions. I'll try to answer them quickly. - In general, in my program, there was a lot of push for students to publish. This led to collaborations between students and professors on side research projects in addition to dis and theses - so, it is most common for students to publish with their advisors and/or other profs in the department. It is not unusual at all for people to publish as the sole author, but that happens more with older, more established students publishing conference papers or their dissertations, or professors. - In regards to "ownership" of the samples, I should probably explain my point of view a little bit better. I didn't necessarily think of myself as the 'owner' of the samples - if anything, that would be Advisor 1. He procured the funds for the excavations that resulted in the samples, and has been very controlling in terms of dictating how they are used and how the information from analysis is framed. In his mind, it's his site, and his interpretation, and anything that comes out of it should bear his stamp of approval. In some ways, this can be good, because it means he is very interested in 'helping out' on any projects related to the site. I know he believes that he should be included on anything published regarding them, particularly because I was his student. That was all but spelled out for me when I became part of the project. Advisor 1 is young, ambitious, and aggressive when it comes to publishing. - As for actually getting it published, I do think I have a decent shot. My sample size is much larger than theirs was, and the expanse of my research is quite broader (in part because I had to broaden it, once I realized they were already publishing a paper on the most significant/sexiest part of the data that was coming out of the samples). Hopefully that addresses some of the ambiguities in my original post. I guess part of my question is this - Is the advice given by your advisors during the process of producing a thesis considered just part of their job as a teacher and advisor, or is it grounds to include them if it gets published? As I mentioned, I don't necessarily want to continue working with either of these people. I feel they behaved in a most un-advisorly way, because they wanted to produce a 2-author paper. But, I certainly don't want to fail to give credit where it is due.

Hello all - I have a few questions re: turning my masters thesis into a publication, and whether or not to include my co-advisors as authors. I have some general ideas about this, but I have a unique situation and would like a little more input from the world wide web. I recently finished my masters in Anthropology (focus in archaeology) and decided to leave the program I was in due to a few factors, but mainly the situation I found myself in with my advisors. Let me provide just a smidge of background. There is Advisor 1, who ran an excavation and invited me to be a part of his project to do special analysis of certain samples we would take during excavations for my thesis project. Then there is Advisor 2, my "real" advisor, who did not have any ties to the project but provided me with the technical training to do this special analysis (actually, she arranged to have one of her older graduate students train me). Fast forward to the middle of my second year, when I am in the thick of figuring out what the results of my analysis mean and writing my thesis, and I am informed by Advisor 1 that he and Advisor 2 are publishing a paper they co-wrote that is very, very closely related to my thesis topic. The paper is already in review at this point, and I was provided with a copy. Upon reading the methodologies section, I discover that Advisor 1 had given Advisor 2 access to the samples taken during excavation (the exact same samples I was using to do my analysis, for some of the exact same purposes, i.e., to answer some of the same research questions I was exploring in my thesis). I want to be clear that neither of my advisors actually used any of my data or research, but Advisor 1 gave Advisor 2 access to 'my' samples. Advisor 2 did some of the exact same type of analysis that I had already done on the exact same samples. This information was then used to write a paper I did not even know about, one that basically makes my thesis irrelevant and redundant (except for the fact I did a lot more samples than Advisor 2 did...). I understand that the samples were not really mine, but I was given every impression that I would be the one using them to do this very specific type of analysis and publish on it (with my advisors as co-authors, of course). So, my question is this: how do I navigate turning my thesis into a journal article with these two people? I have never actually discussed what happened with either one of them (it took me a long time to sort out what was actually happening and what it meant, and I was also afraid of making a stink about it because I was a month away from my defense. Also I don't like confrontation... I've grown a bit more of a backbone since then, though...). I have discussed this issue with a few friends, who are either in graduate school or have recently graduated, but I work in a very small field. Everyone I know also knows or works with these two people, and I'm not interested in being known as a gossip. One friend has suggested just going ahead and publishing on my own, but I feel a little uncomfortable about this. Both advisors did assist me in formulating some of the ideas in my thesis. At the same time, I loathe the idea of working with either one of them again. Thoughts??