Ethics course seminar 1 Group 5

The dilemma A student and his/her supervisor submit a paper to Nature. The paper gets rejected. 70/30% contribution of the student/supervisor The supervisor wants to publish only in very high impact journals and disagrees with the student to publish in a decent “tier 2” journal. This means that the work will be wasted

Points of view Supervisor PhD student Funding - low impact factor papers look “bad” Bruised ego PhD student Needs to publish to obtain the degree / advance the career The paper is “decent science” Recognition for work done

The question What should the student do?

Our solution The student submits the paper to a tier 2 journal as the sole author without supervisor’s knowledge/consent Are there any alternatives to our solution? Submit with the supervisor as co-author (still without consent) Don’t submit at all Negotiate - involve a third party (union, ombudsman etc.)

Effects of ‘submit as sole author’ PhD student advances in career Supervisor is not acknowledged for his work Scientific Community Findings are available to the general community No correct assessment of student’s contribution by funding agencies etc. possible

Effects of ‘Submit with supervisor as co-author’ PhD student progresses in career Supervisor does not consent, his funding opportunities might be damaged Scientific Community Findings are available to the general community Correct assessment of contribution by funding agencies possible

Effects of ‘not publishing’ PhD student does not progress in career Supervisor is not affected Scientific Community Findings are not available to the general community

Effects of ‘negotiations’ PhD student does not progress in career Supervisor is not affected Scientific Community Findings are not available to the general community