PhD Etiquette question

Gaspode

Scenario: a researcher doing a PhD in a research lab, and has an undergraduate student working with him to assist in lab work. The undergraduate is at diploma or basic degree level and is doing the work for exam project/work experience purposes. The PhD researcher goes out sick for a year or so, and the undergraduate student takes on the remaining lab work, doing much more than was originally scheduled for their own project.

When the PhD researcher comes back how much of that work should he claim as 'his' for the purposes of writing up his thesis. He may have had a hand in designing the experiments, but actaully took no part in doing them or collating the data derived.

Any comments?

2Scoops

This is one reason why authorship should be determined before the research has been carried out. If I was the PhD guy, I would probably give the undergrad 2nd author on most, if not all, papers.

The intellectual contribution is usually viewed as the most important; most lab work is not technically demanding. Paid lab employees typically do not even appear on papers. So, from that point of view, the undergrad may get left out in the cold. If the undergrad has made a substantial intellectual contribution or is writing the actual papers as well, it would be fair to give him co-1st author or something similar.

5uspect

At most he would get a mention in the acknowledgements. Tho, to be fair, under such circumstances where such an amount of work was performed by the assistant, it might be good to give them a secondary authorship. Particularly if the student was promising.

Gaspode

Thanks for the replies guys.


When preparing for my own viva many moons ago, my supervisors continually corrected me for using the word 'we' when explaining something, e.g. we examined the samples for this, or we felt the results indicated that, etc. This was because I too had undergraduates working with me from time to time. My supervisors continually told me 'this is your thesis, not a team effort, so only use I and not we during the viva'.

This is why with a thesis I feel the PhD student should do the majority of the lab work, I think its an important part of the education process.

With regard to publication of papers in journals, I agree its not an issue, I think it would be easy enough to just either include the more junior student as an author, or indeed make an acknowledgement at the end of the paper.



My experience as a researcher is that the more successful you are, the less time you spend in a lab, so it's normal for others to do the lab work for you. However, I'm not sure that PhD students have that luxury, and perhaps the university might feel that that they should do the lab work.

2Scoops

Gaspode wrote: »

my supervisors continually corrected me for using the word 'we' when explaining something, e.g. we examined the samples for this, or we felt the results indicated that, etc.

At least they focused on the important stuff! :rolleyes::D

Jokesetal

Going back to the original question: Can the PhD Researcher claim work as their own?

For a PhD: No is the simple answer. The work could be used as part of a chapter (although the Declaration at the start of the thesis addresses this), but the researcher can't farm out work to UG's for direct insertion into a thesis. This is even more apparent in this case where the researcher didn't supervise, review, advise on experimental/anlaysis, comment on drafts or correct any mistakes.

For a paper: Any "significant" work by any researchers should be rewarded with authorship, the order (2nd, 3rd author etc) being decided by the PI.
For example, running some UV's wouldn't count IMO.

Turbulent Bill

Jokesetal wrote: »

Going back to the original question: Can the PhD Researcher claim work as their own?

For a PhD: No is the simple answer. The work could be used as part of a chapter (although the Declaration at the start of the thesis addresses this), but the researcher can't farm out work to UG's for direct insertion into a thesis. This is even more apparent in this case where the researcher didn't supervise, review, advise on experimental/anlaysis, comment on drafts or correct any mistakes.

For a paper: Any "significant" work by any researchers should be rewarded with authorship, the order (2nd, 3rd author etc) being decided by the PI.
For example, running some UV's wouldn't count IMO.

I think it depends on how the researcher structured the experimental work. If he/she designed the experiments, defined the protocols etc. and all the undergrad had to do was run the tests and collate the results then it should be perfectly valid to call it the researcher's work. The undergrad is essentially just replacing the test and measurement software used in automated tests. An acknowledgement for the effort put in would naturally be needed, but that's about it.

If, however, there's an element of results analysis from the undergrad then they deserve authorship of some sort, and it couldn't form part of the researcher's thesis.

Jokesetal

Gaspode wrote: »

Scenario: a researcher doing a PhD in a research lab, and has an undergraduate student working with him to assist in lab work. The undergraduate is at diploma or basic degree level and is doing the work for exam project/work experience purposes. The PhD researcher goes out sick for a year or so, and the undergraduate student takes on the remaining lab work, doing much more than was originally scheduled for their own project.

I think this is the important line, the UG did more than was prescribed/expected.
Therefore how can the PG claim it?