Turning thesis into article, including bad advisors?

[cantusacredula]

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??

Edited August 20, 2013 by cantusacredula

[fuzzylogician]

What are the publishing conventions in your field? Do students normally publish work alone or with their advisors? Does giving someone access to samples immediately guarantee the "owner" of the samples authorship on any results of work on those samples? That aside, do people normally publish co-authored or single-authored papers? Will people be suspicious if you publish alone? (Also, is it even possible to publish something now, since it seems that you've been scooped?) The answers to questions like these vary widely across fields and it's hard to know what might be acceptable in your case without knowing more about these conventions. 

[cantusacredula]

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.

[Eigen]

Take my advice with a grain of salt, as I'm from a different field:

 

I don't see that you could really get away with not publishing with at least Advisor 1, as they are his samples, his funding, and he seemed to help direct your analysis of the samples. 

 

If you were a quite senior researcher, you might be able to get away with an acknowledgement rather than a co-authorship, but I don't think that's likely as you were also advised by them. 

 

Advisor 2 is a trickier case. They didn't technically help you with this project, but it depends on how involved they were in training you for the analyses, as well as field norms.

 

In my field, both would definitely be included, but the same might not apply for yours. 

 

As to your last question, I don't think you can really separate advice given as an advisor from consultation given by them as an academic. If anything, the fact that the advice was given to you as an advisor seems to make it more applicable to include them on the publication than less. 

 

Also, in my field, them taking some of the same samples and doing some of the same analysis and publishing wouldn't be that unusual. It undermines part of your thesis, but from what you've said it's only part. Similarly, they didn't use any of your methods or data, so it's not like they "stole" anything from you. I can think of several reasons they might have wanted to push and get it out- using Advisor 2 as a name to establish Advisor 1 in the area of methodology, or using it to "stake a claim" on the area against other researchers. 

[TakeruK]

Also in a different field and here are my thoughts:

 

1. To answer your question, I think advice from the advisor during the process of producing a thesis is both part of their job and grounds for including them as coauthors. Many schools actually have a general written policy regarding this that can be superceded by any more specific agreement between advisor and student. I would say that it's the norm in my field to expect student and advisor to publish the thesis work together. For side projects, which are common here too, the expected outcomes (papers etc.) are usually stated at the start of the project. For larger collaboration across many schools, there is sometimes an agreement to be signed by all members that clearly states the publication policies.

 

2. In my field, I think it would be bad form for an advisor to use data / write a paper that undermines even just a small part of your student's work without informing the student beforehand. For example, the prof usually is the one to apply for time on a telescope to collect data but the student is often the one who collects and reduces/analyse the data. Sometimes the student's name is on the proposal but other times, the proposal might have been written before the student joined the project. In this case, technically the prof "owns" the data since they wrote the proposal, got the funding/time etc. So I think this is a similar situation to you. 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.

 

3. In my field I would also include both advisors on the paper. You would definitely include Advisor 1, since it was their project -- i.e. their samples, their funding, and their reputation/history/experience that got them the funding for the project in the first place. Again, comparing to my experience, when I write up my project mentioned above and when I present it at conferences, I will end up including every person on the original proposal as a co-author, even though the project has multiple components and I did not talk to some of the proposal writers at all about my part of the project. But, since I am using the data from that proposal, everyone involved in "earning" that data should be included on the paper. 

 

So, I don't think your advisors are doing anything that is technically wrong. In my field, their behaviour would not be that rare, but definitely frowned upon and I think it's valid to feel unhappy about the situation. In my experience, most of my advisors have always tried to put their students' best interests first and if they wanted to publish something that might affect my future work, they would probably try to include me in that work.

[Eigen]

I could be wrong, but I took the OPs situation to be more similar to Advisor A having an instrument (IE, the telescope) and letting both Advisor B and the OP use it for research, rather than Advisor A and Advisor B use data that the student collected to write a second paper. 

 

Same material objects, but from the OP, no overlap in her work and theirs, just on the same area/same artifacts, but not artifacts the OP collected physically, just ones they were using with permission from Advisor A. I could be wrong about this though, and would need clarification from the OP. 

[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 --

[TakeruK]

I could be wrong, but I took the OPs situation to be more similar to Advisor A having an instrument (IE, the telescope) and letting both Advisor B and the OP use it for research, rather than Advisor A and Advisor B use data that the student collected to write a second paper. 

 

Same material objects, but from the OP, no overlap in her work and theirs, just on the same area/same artifacts, but not artifacts the OP collected physically, just ones they were using with permission from Advisor A. I could be wrong about this though, and would need clarification from the OP. 

 

I think you're right -- I misunderstood the original post a little bit and thought that Advisor 2 was using the data collected by the OP. But now this sounds like if I used Advisor's 1 telescope* to look at a certain set of stars, and then Advisor 2 also used Advisor's 1 telescope to look at the same set of stars and independently collect their own data! This sounds like a waste of resources though, unless there was reason to believe that the OP did not collect the original data properly. Otherwise, why waste time using the instrument to collect a duplicate copy of the same data! In this case, I would feel even more upset as the OP because both Advisors 1 and 2 should have known that the OP has already collected the data, and their choice to redo the same analysis on the same samples with the same equipment is a conscious choice to exclude the OP from the work. The two profs have every right to do this of course, but I feel that it is not the behaviour I would wish my supervisors to have.

 

(*Note: just for sake of argument, it would be pretty rare for a single prof to own a whole telescope!)

 

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 --

 

So, as I said above, the situation is slightly different since my supervisor and their collaborator (also my collaborator at this point) did use some of my data in the end and I was included in the paper after all (along with everyone else on the proposal so it's not like going from 2 authors to 3, but more like from 8 to 9). But I feel that it is the responsibility of your supervisor (both Advisors 1 and 2) to look out for your interests here too. I would have expected that if Advisor 2 wanted to work with the samples that Advisor 1 had instructed you to analyse, Advisor 1 should have said "Sure, you can look at these samples, but my student, OP, is also working on these samples too so we should include OP in our work." As a graduate student, I don't think it's right that you should ever feel that your advisor is working with someone that is competing against you and you should never have to feel that you are competing against your advisors!! When I agree to work on a project with a prof, I am expecting that I will be the only one that they work on this project with! I would think it is a conflict of interest / conflict of commitment if the supervisor was simultaneously working on the same analysis on the same samples with another person (whether they're another grad student, a postdoc, or a prof!)

[Eigen]

One of the other ways to look at this, is that the first paper will make yours more viable, especially with their names on it. 

 

My supposition (since you said Advisor 1 is young), is that Advisor 1 was worried about the position of his (and your) research going into major journals, and wanted to get some of the findings out early to claim them. Additionally, Advisor 2s name on the paper will help it get accepted, while at the same time associating Advisor 1s name with the project. 

 

At least in my field, 2 faculty and a graduate student is really tricky authorship. If a grad student and faculty member coauthor, it's assumed that even with the grad student as first author, the faculty member is in the advising role. Similarly, if two faculty publish together, it's assumed that they relatively equally coauthored. 

 

In the sense that Advisor 1, with you as his/her student, You, and Advisor 2 publish together, assuming the order is You, Advisor 2, Advisor 1, then the assumption would be that Advisor 2s role was very minimal, which might not have worked for them, and might not have given the name recognition factor to the work. 

 

If they were under the impression that the paper wouldn't completely undermine your work, but might actually make it more viable long term, I can see this type of arrangement working out for all parties. 

 

Similarly, you might ask Advisor 1 about authorship- they might say you don't need to include Advisor 2 as an author, but just in the acknowledgements or through citation of the original authorship.