Advisor or Co-Author?

[BeingThere]

I have done an independent research project and am getting ready to write it up (and hopefully submit for publication).  I received a fellowship to do the research and I am the principle investigator.  My professor was listed just as my research advisor, not as a co-investigator. 

 

I am feeling some hints coming my from my professor that they want to be listed as a co-author.  But my professor has seemed as unsure as I am.  Is it usual, as an undergrad, to list the faculty member who advises you as a co-author of the work?

 

It is difficult for me to tell what is customary or normal in this regard at my school because other students doing research with other professors are in more of a typical lab setting (some quite literally), and their work is much more dependent on the faculty in charge of the lab.  That is not the situation for me.  However, I certainly got guidance from my advisor.

 

Anybody know what the custom is?

 

I hope I don't sound ungracious.  I am  happy and honored to list him as a co-author.  I just don't know if there is a usual protocol.

Edited January 25, 2013 by Bren2014

[veggiez]

I would definitely list my research advisor as a co-author. I have done independent research with a grant and everything as well, but I just feel like the people who are involved usually get credit as well. Even if some of my peers in my advisor's lab helped me with data collection, I would probably include them as well. You of course would be listed first, since you were the PI and you are writing the paper, but I am sure your advisor played enough of a role that he deserves to be included. 

[BeingThere]

Sounds good.  Thanks for the reply, Psych_kv!

[DarwinAG]

This is probably an unnecessary post since you have made your decision already, but I would definitely include my advisor in any publication this early in my career for a few reasons. One, guidance and feedback I think warrants authorship this early. I am principal investigator on several projects, but I know how much my advisor has helped guide and supported it. Even when I conducted my honors thesis of which I am the sole principal investigator, I would still include him if I ever published the data because I think he was pivotal in shaping the work. Two, offering and extending authorship not only shows appreciation (which is a good reason on its own), but it also signals you want him to be part of your work. Three, extending authorship will give him more cause to actually finish the project with you, not to mention this has further downstream effects for future collaborations and writing projects.

 

Ultimately, while I think APA guidelines does not specifically say "guidance and feedback" warrants authorship, such an extension has more advantages than not extending it. It is still your choice to extend it to him.

 

Personally, I love working on papers with other people. It really cuts the work load and I think improves the quality of the work. I know I will have plenty of opportunities to publish on my own later if I ever want that experience. I may do it for funsies at one point.

[BeingThere]

I agree on all those points, DarwinAG.  It is invaluable to have colleagues and mentors in the research process and I certainly want to give credit where it is due.  I have total respect and very high regard for my professor and know I could not have gotten through the project without his guidance.

 

It's just a weird area to navigate.  I think the issue is even a little more weird in that I submitted to present a poster at a conference and it was very specific about authors vs faculty advisors.  I listed him as faculty advisor per the instructions in the submission.  I want to give him the credit he deserves but wasn't sure if there was a line between faculty advisor and co-author.  Sounds like there is not a hard and fast one, anyway.

[lewin]

Did you two discuss ideas? Data analysis and findings? Will he help write the paper (even with just editing or comments)? All of those tasks are deserving of authorship.