research collaborations, colleagues and supervision seminar 2 adam sobkowiak andreas blidberg dou du...
DESCRIPTION
What is the problem? Collaboration was launched without proper planning. Different expectations from the two PhD students. Different timescales of the work. The theoretician is dependent on the experimentalist, but the experimentalist can collaborate with others. Who decides the author order? Who made the largest and the most significant contribution?TRANSCRIPT
Research collaborations, colleagues and supervision
Seminar 2
Adam Sobkowiak Andreas Blidberg
Dou Du Fredrik Lindgren
Yu Zhang
Relations with fellow researchers
• Collaboration between two PhD students, one experimentalist and one theoretician.
• The theoretician proposed the project.• The theoretician is dependent on the experimentalist
unique method.• The experimentalists work is fast and light and quickly
makes a draft as first authors without discussion. • The theoretician PhD student need at least one paper
as first author.
What is the problem?
• Collaboration was launched without proper planning. • Different expectations from the two PhD students. • Different timescales of the work. • The theoretician is dependent on the experimentalist,
but the experimentalist can collaborate with others.
• Who decides the author order?• Who made the largest and the most significant
contribution?
Possible solutions
• Publish as is, experimentalist first author• Publish as two individual papers• The project is cancelled – no publication• Theoretician is first author
• Publish with two first authors
The actors
• Strengths– No bad feelings– Win win situation– High impact journal– Journal gets a nice publication– Synergetic effects – the sum of
the parts is larger than the whole
• Opportunities– More citations and references– Future funding– Society notice & media pick up– Many researchers will notice
and can continue.
• Threats– Journal accept 2 authors?– ”Forced” solution => damage
future collaborations– Illusion of a good
collaboration
• Weaknesses– Ethically correct? Theoreticians
did 70%!– Credit to the right funding and
agency.– Credit to the right researcher– Dilute the authorships– The real problem is not solved
Concluding remarks
• Bad planning results in this kind of situations. • No standard or rules to decide the author
order.• Difficulties in evaluation of contributions (idea
vs. unique technique). • No perfect solution.