1. Ethics course seminar 1 Group 5

2. 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

3. 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

4. The question
What should the student do?

5. 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.)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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