How do you handle a toxic supervisor undermining your contributions?

[binbagsss]

I recently published a paper with my two supervisors. I am a second author, which i agree with , I was not first. However, the article I was shown that I agreed to listed DIFFERENT author contributions to the ones I was shown before submission. In particular, the paper was modified in this section without consulting me first. Basically the third author-my internal supervisor who I have always found a bad supervisor but just trying to get my PhD finished, removed me of a couple of sections ! And added himself to new contributions titles which we didn't even have before !!

If asked about the paper I would definitely know a lot more than him nd I spent a few months solving the problem whereas he was just basically filled in with the updates as it progressed ! Yet he's added himself to 'investigation' etc and taken me off. This is also very unprofessional to not consult me and I feel like I should take actions but I don't want to cause trouble- my PhD is due to end in December. However, this was a decent piece of work towards my thesis and my name has been taken of the 'analysis of results' which is a key section and he's added himself somehow, despite the fact I know he did not make any contribution here and I spent a few months thinking about things.

He has also generally been very toxic in all meetings throughout my PhD and I can't see the last time he was a first-author. He is close to retirement but basically just gets his names on things as second or third author due to his position in the department I feel. He is an engineer and my PhD is pretty hybrid with mathematical physics. I know I shouldn't say this, but it is obvious he often does not know what is going on wr.t. most of my work. Yet him and my external supervisor (the first author) are good friends.

So e.g. in a meeting earlier this week I ask a question about wanting to prove a result using a general expression rather than specifying one, and the external supervisor is like 'So you want instead to use a specific expression' (this is just what he does, culture difference I think, to get me tot think and explain myself, and i;m fine with that, kind of with a sarcastic tone), i'm like no but my question is blahblah....but then he asked the internal supervisor 'what do you think ' to which he replies 'yeh sounds reasonable to me' just as though I am the clueless one when I am not and I know it was a good question. This probably hasn't explained the situation too well or painted the tone well but there's a lot of things like this all the time.

 

[Choppy]

There's a lot to unpack here - but what I'm getting is just that you're venting frustrations.

Are you looking for specific advice on handling this? If you're defending in a few weeks, my first suggestion would be to ride it out. Defend your PhD and leave on the best terms you can. In your thesis you should have a section (or multiple sections) describing your specific contributions to each of the core chapters, so you can clear up any misunderstanding there.

 

[binbagsss]

There's a lot to unpack here - but what I'm getting is just that you're venting frustrations.

Are you looking for specific advice on handling this? If you're defending in a few weeks, my first suggestion would be to ride it out. Defend your PhD and leave on the best terms you can. In your thesis you should have a section (or multiple sections) describing your specific contributions to each of the core chapters, so you can clear up any misunderstanding there.

my point is it takes away a decent amount of work. so may be the difference of passing with minor or major corrections. no i write up over the next few months, not supposed to do anymore research. my internal supervisor will ensure that doesn't happen.

 

[binbagsss]

my point is it takes away a decent amount of work. so may be the difference of passing with minor or major corrections. no i write up over the next few months, not supposed to do anymore research. my internal supervisor will ensure that doesn't happen.

just venting my frustrations? so okay that's totally normal? it's okay to change contributions and not tell the phd student you're changing them from the ones they agreed with?! well ok. no wonder ppl say academia is toxic.

 

[binbagsss]

since there's no time for extra research yeh maybe i just stay in good terms :( my viva won't be for about a year though!

 

[WWGD]

since there's no time for extra research yeh maybe i just stay in good terms :( my viva won't be for about a year though!

Viva?

 

[Haborix]

Viva?

Called the PhD defense in the U.S. Viva is more common in Europe.

 

[WWGD]

Called the PhD defense in the U.S. Viva is more common in Europe.

So if you defend your thesis in Nevada, it may be Viva Las Vegas, I guess ;).

 

[DaveE]

"The victorious man in the day of crisis is the man who has the serenity to accept what he cannot help and the courage to change what must be altered." - Reinhold Niebuhr

Pick your battles carefully. What is most important to you now?

 

[Haborix]

A lot of the original post feels like jumping the gun when the primary question hasn't even been asked yet. "Hey, I was looking at the published paper. Why was I was removed from these contribution sections?"

 

[Choppy]

my point is it takes away a decent amount of work. so may be the difference of passing with minor or major corrections. no i write up over the next few months, not supposed to do anymore research. my internal supervisor will ensure that doesn't happen.

I'm not sure I understand this point.
You and your supervisors/research team submitted a paper to a journal, and your supervisor modified the author attributions... claiming that he did something he didn't do, and he deleted reference to contributions you made. I get that this can be frustrating, but ultimately, you're an author on the paper. It will be listed on your CV. If you have the opportunity to talk about it with any interested parties (say at a job interview), you can explain specifically the work that you've done.
Do you know for a fact this was done maliciously? Or was something deleted in an effort to meet a word count? Or could there be a reason why your supervisor might not appreciate the time and effort you put into those other aspects of the project?
None of this is to suggest that your concerns aren't valid. Honesty, transparency, and accountability are the building blocks of a healthy relationship.

just venting my frustrations? so okay that's totally normal? it's okay to change contributions and not tell the phd student you're changing them from the ones they agreed with?! well ok. no wonder ppl say academia is toxic.

I think there may have been a miscommunication. When someone is "venting frustrations" it means that they are giving them voice, writing them out. It doesn't mean the concerns are invalid. Your original post didn't ask for any specific advice. So I was asking whether you wanted help with fixing these problems, or if you were using this forum as a means to express your malcontent with the situation.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

If what you said was true, and your contributions for what you were denied credit for were correct, and not erroneous.

Then I would argue to keep your name on them. Let him adjoin his name to these sections. But keep yours.

 

[CrysPhys]

If what you said was true, and your contributions for what you were denied credit for were correct, and not erroneous.

Then I would argue to keep your name on them. Let him adjoin his name to these sections. But keep yours.

If I understand the OP correctly (and I'm not sure I do), the paper has already published:

I recently published a paper with my two supervisors. I am a second author, which i agree with , I was not first.

So any remedy would require the authors submitting a request for correction to the journal. Do you imagine that happening?

Perhaps there's the option for the OP to submit a second paper, including the previously deleted material.

Regardless, the OP has not yet received their degree, and their future is very much in the hands of their supervisors. The OP can escalate the matter to get justice ... and risk getting royally screwed; or the OP can wrap up as expeditiously as possible, and move on right quick.

 

[gwnorth]

Viva?

Viva Voce
noun British
an oral examination, typically for an academic qualification.

The viva voce is the final assessment for a PhD. It is an oral examination where the student defends their research to two academic examiners. This involves answering questions about your work, typically related to the literature, methodology, your findings and the significance of your conclusions. In some countries (like the USA) the viva is actually referred to as a 'PhD defence', because the candidate defends their thesis from these questions.

 

[Orodruin]

I have refrained from commenting so far to see a little bit how the thread is going, but I should offer a bit of perspective here.

First of all, I should declare that my point of view here is that of having directed a PhD program for what is soon 6 years. As such, I have invariably had to handle a number of cases where a conflict of some sort between advisor and PhD student has arisen.

From my experience, there are always two wildly differing accounts on the cause of the conflict: One from the PhD student and another from the advisor. The best solution, if still possible, is if both parties still have enough confidence in each other to have an open dialogue about the issue and reach an agreement. Possibly with a mediator present if heads are likely to run hot. If this is impossible, other measures need to be taken depending on the situation.

With that said, we only have one of the accounts here, the one of the PhD student, which makes it severely difficult to assess the actual situation as outsiders. If the OP feels that the situation has escalated to the point where they have problems raising the issue with their supervisor(s) and continuing their work towards the thesis, then the next step should be to contact the director of the PhD program (or similar function).

It should also be noted that the accusation here involves significant scientific misconduct on the part of the supervisor. If substantiated it could have consequences for the supervisor and as such should not be made lightly without significant evidence.

 

[CrysPhys]

If the OP feels that the situation has escalated to the point where they have problems raising the issue with their supervisor(s) and continuing their work towards the thesis, then the next step should be to contact the director of the PhD program (or similar function).

I'd still say tread carefully. You need to evaluate how egregious the scenario is, and the risk vs benefit. If you do escalate to a higher authority, you'll likely still be stuck in an adversarial relationship with your supervisors ... supervisors with whom you still need to work with to complete your degree, and supervisors who need to sign off on your degree.

 

[Orodruin]

I'd still say tread carefully. You need to evaluate how egregious the scenario is, and the risk vs benefit. If you need to escalate to a higher authority, you'll likely still be stuck in an adversarial relationship with your supervisors ... supervisors with whom you still need to work with to complete your degree, and supervisors who need to sign off on your degree.

One of the possible solutions to such situations is to change supervisor. This is absolutely necessary in some cases. Whether this is possible or not most likely varies between different universities. Our PhD students have the right to request a change of supervisor (but depending on the subject area may then have to somewhat switch the direction of their PhD for the new supervisor to be able to provide supervision). OP should check local rules and guidelines, obviously.

PhD students here also have the right to defend their PhD regardless of what their supervisors position. Obviously, in the normal case the student and supervisor will have an open and constructive discussion to reach a consensus on when it is the time, but defending against the recommendation of the supervisor is always a possibility here precisely for this reason.

 

[CrysPhys]

One of the possible solutions to such situations is to change supervisor. This is absolutely necessary in some cases. Whether this is possible or not most likely varies between different universities. Our PhD students have the right to request a change of supervisor (but depending on the subject area may then have to somewhat switch the direction of their PhD for the new supervisor to be able to provide supervision). OP should check local rules and guidelines, obviously.

PhD students here also have the right to defend their PhD regardless of what their supervisors position. Obviously, in the normal case the student and supervisor will have an open and constructive discussion to reach a consensus on when it is the time, but defending against the recommendation of the supervisor is always a possibility here precisely for this reason.

Yes, each scenario and each university are different. How to handle a particular scenario depends on how egregious the scenario is and on how far along the student is into the PhD Program. In my own instance (in the US), my advisor did something that was not kosher. I was faced with three options: (1) walk, (2) escalate to a higher authority, or (3) tough it out. I was 5+ yrs into my program. After consulting with some scientists I knew outside the university, I chose (3) and finished my PhD 1+ yrs later.

I served as an industry mentor to students for ~15 yrs. Among the students were 3 PhD students who ran into problematic scenarios with their advisors. One scenario was particularly egregious because the student was being sexually harassed by her own advisor. She was ~4 yrs in. Given the severity of the situation, she had no option but to escalate and to switch advisors. It was a tough go for her. The higher authorities (I told her to escalate first to the department head and then to a dean) were not supportive, and other professors were reluctant to get involved. One professor finally had enough empathy and courage to take her on. This was well before the Me Too Movement; the scenario would likely be handled more satisfactorily these days (at least I hope it would be).

Back to the OP. If I understand their scenario correctly (and as I mentioned before, I'm not sure I do): (1) they have completed their research, (2) they have one year to write up their thesis and defend it, and (3) their grievance concerns not receiving credit on a publication for work they've done, and a supervisor receiving credit for work the supervisor has not done. So again, the OP needs to carefully evaluate risk vs benefit in seeking justice (given the only info we have).

 

[gleem]

Unless your name being removed has a very significant effect on your career, I would recommend that you let it go. First, it would be a big distraction, and second, the deck is stacked against you. Your external advisor doesn't seem to see a problem. In my opinion, the risk is far greater than the benefit. Don't give your internal advisor a reason to find issues with your dissertation or to ding you on a letter of recommendation.

. . . my internal supervisor who I have always found a bad supervisor . . .

Finally, why did you stay with him? I say this from experience: recognizing early on that a supervisor is not suitable for you is vital to prevent later problems.

 

[CrysPhys]

"The victorious man in the day of crisis is the man who has the serenity to accept what he cannot help and the courage to change what must be altered." - Reinhold Niebuhr

Pick your battles carefully. What is most important to you now?

Alternative phrasing:

“He who fights and runs away​

May live to fight another day;​

But he who is battle slain​

Can never rise to fight again.”​

― Oliver Goldsmith


ETA: Yet another variant is, "Be right, just don't be dead right."

​

 

[binbagsss]

I'm not sure I understand this point.
You and your supervisors/research team submitted a paper to a journal, and your supervisor modified the author attributions... claiming that he did something he didn't do, and he deleted reference to contributions you made. I get that this can be frustrating, but ultimately, you're an author on the paper. It will be listed on your CV. If you have the opportunity to talk about it with any interested parties (say at a job interview), you can explain specifically the work that you've done.
Do you know for a fact this was done maliciously? Or was something deleted in an effort to meet a word count? Or could there be a reason why your supervisor might not appreciate the time and effort you put into those other aspects of the project?
None of this is to suggest that your concerns aren't valid. Honesty, transparency, and accountability are the building blocks of a healthy relationship.

I think there may have been a miscommunication. When someone is "venting frustrations" it means that they are giving them voice, writing them out. It doesn't mean the concerns are invalid. Your original post didn't ask for any specific advice. So I was asking whether you wanted help with fixing these problems, or if you were using this forum as a means to express your malcontent with the situation.

No nothing was deleted. Oh I believe it was indeed malicious. I will explain more detail shortly.

 

[binbagsss]

Unless your name being removed has a very significant effect on your career, I would recommend that you let it go. First, it would be a big distraction, and second, the deck is stacked against you. Your external advisor doesn't seem to see a problem. In my opinion, the risk is far greater than the benefit. Don't give your internal advisor a reason to find issues with your dissertation or to ding you on a letter of recommendation.


Finally, why did you stay with him? I say this from experience: recognizing early on that a supervisor is not suitable for you is vital to prevent later problems.

Yes, my situation is a little complicated. I considered moving a few times but concluded it's better to work with. I will explain later on. Re. It affecting my career, potentially. And he is about to retire and it's not even in his area of speciality so it has zero influence on his career by adding this extra contribution, so why he did this is crazy

 

[martinbn]

However, this was a decent piece of work towards my thesis and my name has been taken of the 'analysis of results' which is a key section and he's added himself somehow, despite the fact I know he did not make any contribution here and I spent a few months thinking about things.

Out of curiosity, who wrote the section "analysis of results"?

 

[jedishrfu]

This scenario also happens in industry, where a boss or project leader takes credit for your work. It occurred to me a few times over my long career and there was little I could do. The last time convinced me it was time to retire.

While you may feel the need to fight back, what can happen is that the higher powers will end up punishing both parties. You might get your attribution restored in the paper and will then be moved to another supervisor. However, the new supervisor might treat you poorly, hoping you will leave.

---

Choose your battles wisely, learn from your losses, and stay focused on your goal. There will be other papers that you will be the primary author of.

Who knows what's on your supervisor's mind? They can and do feel that they provided something to your work and should be rewarded with an attribution. He may be under pressure to publish something. Academia is still a publish-or-perish place.

---

At work, we would add inventors (max 4 inventors) to our patent submittal because they provided some incidental contribution. Also, the company would award each person a fixed amount of cash, so we all got to share in the good fortune.

In one lawsuit, the patent holder lost, and the patent was invalidated because he failed to list all authors. It was a sweeping patent for file transmission over the internet that threatened podcasters, online backup services, and a host of other utilities. A trolling law firm owned the patent. It was featured in the When Patents Attack episode of This American Life.

 

[binbagsss]

Out of curiosity, who wrote the section "analysis of results"?

the external supervisor. but i also did some analysis of results. Honestly, I know full-well he did not nothing but read it at the end and reworded things.

 

[martinbn]

the external supervisor. but i also did some analysis of results. Honestly, I know full-well he did not nothing but read it at the end and reworded things.

But if he wrote it it may explain why he is taking credit for it. If you have contributed you can ask for your name to be included and get credit too.