Name omitted from Professor's research paper- What should I do?

[Michael13]

Hi,

I’m currently an upcoming senior and I have a somewhat sticky situation. This is regarding research at an internship I did one Summer ago. For the research, I did some numerical simulation using Matlab to help out with the Professor for 2 ½ months.
Later on, I had a talk with the professor around that time and half a year later where I asked whether or not the results would be published in a paper, the Professor guaranteed that my name would be included in the paper and would require some discussions between him and other collaborators, being busy through the school year, I asked whether we could postpone the discussion until Summer. When Summer came about, I found out that the paper was published without notifying me, as I looked over its contents and some parts of the paper corresponded to the code I wrote up. I also noticed in my place was a different author who went to the same university the professor resided at, and the paper seems to be their(the student’s) first publication.

One thing that’s bothering me is that I was planning to write about this (only)research experience I’ve had so far, and two things are difficult to deal with. One: I was planning on asking this professor for a reference letter for graduate school, but now I’m not sure whether I can trust him, and him being the only professor I did research with, the reference could make a big difference. Two it would look extremely suspicious if I mentioned the research but not have the professor’s letter detailing the research I did.
In the end, I feel like I wasted too much time thinking about this, so I’ve recently reached out a few days ago(without directly revealing I’m aware of what happened), and I’m waiting for a chance (if he responds) to speak about this problem to see why the Professor did this, in a non-confrontational manner.

Another major problem is that, I don’t know whether it would be a good idea to strongly demand the professor to include my name on the paper(especially since the paper has already been published), as the process of debating might not end up favorably and take up too much time, especially if it escalates to the point where both universities have to get involved,
So I think direct confrontation in calling out the professor is out of the question, and at most I feel like what I can do is indirectly confirm with the professor that he did publish the paper, gain some closure, and maybe check and see if he’s still willing to write a reference letter, and hopefully, fingers crossed, he won’t write me a bad letter behind the back.

At this point I don’t have much of a clue on how to deal with this situation, and this situation is a first for me personally, so I would appreciate any advice or suggestions on how to go about this situation in a practical and reasonable way.

 

[Choppy]

I think you're on the right track speaking to the professor about it directly.

One thing to be aware of though... just because you worked on a project that got published, it doesn't necessarily mean that you were entitled to authorship.

Journals have specific guidelines for what constitutes inclusion as an author. Typically this includes a contribution to a majority of the different aspects of the work including: project design, background research, tool development, conducting the experiment, analysis, and write-up/editing of the paper. Having coded some simulations may not have met the threshold for inclusion as an author.

Also if you put off talking to this professor about it for an entire semester, this might have drawn into question your availability for things like proof-reading or responding to the referees. Sometimes it's important to get research results out in a timely manner. So, it is possible from his point of view that he thought your were blowing him off. If an undergraduate student told me they didn't have time to talk about a paper until "the summer" I wouldn't put the brakes on the project until their schedule is free.

That doesn't mean that you don't have an argument. I don't know the details, but you're right that stomping your feet is likely to burn bridges.

Have the conversation. It's okay to respectfully convey that you're disappointed you weren't included in that paper. Maybe that work will be used in another one? Ask if the professor will still give you a positive reference, and if not any feedback for things you can work on for the future.

 

[Michael13]

Hi, I think what you said makes sense. I did follow-up halfway throughout the year with the professor on the status of the paper, but from what I remember, the professor wasn't focused on finishing the writeup at that time and was waiting to collect more experimental data and results to come to a definite conclusion. If there was any urgent rush to publish the paper, I wish he would have told me about it, but it's possible I probably should have given more thought that a year is a long time, and it's possible that the Professor wanted to publish the paper quickly for reasons that would be difficult to bring up in a meeting. At this point, I'm just waiting for the professor to reply, and hopefully see how it goes from there.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Some questions to ask yourself:
1. What do you want to happen now? Is it realistic?
2. Can you defend the scientific results of the paper?
3. How much of this 2-1/2 months did you spend on this particular project? How much of this time was spent learning and how much contributing?
4. Is it likely that this work had to be redone?

We don't need to know this - but you should.

On point #4, it is not unusual to find that after a summer student leaves, nobody else canm reproduce what they did, and the work therefore needs to be redone. This doesn't mean that the student did anything wrong or a bad job, but in science if you can't reproduce it, it didn't happen.

 

[jedishrfu]

Also it may be the newer student put the paper together with the profs name and your contribution fell by the wayside.

Also its possible that the new student had extended your work and then the prof thought it was solely their work.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

Later on, I had a talk with the professor around that time and half a year later where I asked whether or not the results would be published in a paper, the Professor guaranteed that my name would be included in the paper and would require some discussions between him and other collaborators, being busy through the school year, I asked whether we could postpone the discussion until Summer.

This sounds like you had definite plans on publishing? If that is accurate (go back to your emails, what exactly did you exchange) I don't see what would be wrong about asking what happened to those plans. Did the professor agree/acknowledge that the project would be put on hold for that long (as I understand basically a year)? Or did you just let them know you were not around for the next months and hoped that meant things were paused?
I would probably tread lightly on demanding to be (or that you should have been) on the already published paper. Is it possible at all that you misunderstand what the paper is doing? Maybe it is more of a followup on your project? It is not unheard of that a followup gets technically published earlier than more basic work, just because the writeup went quicker etc. It is certainly not the case that you can be expected to be included on all future projects that reuse some part of the code you wrote for the professor, if you are not involved in that research anymore.

 

[Michael13]

This sounds like you had definite plans on publishing? If that is accurate (go back to your emails, what exactly did you exchange) I don't see what would be wrong about asking what happened to those plans. Did the professor agree/acknowledge that the project would be put on hold for that long (as I understand basically a year)? Or did you just let them know you were not around for the next months and hoped that meant things were paused?
I would probably tread lightly on demanding to be (or that you should have been) on the already published paper. Is it possible at all that you misunderstand what the paper is doing? Maybe it is more of a followup on your project? It is not unheard of that a followup gets technically published earlier than more basic work, just because the writeup went quicker etc. It is certainly not the case that you can be expected to be included on all future projects that reuse some part of the code you wrote for the professor, if you are not involved in that research anymore.

Hi, I just got an update(email) from the professor I worked with. The professor told me that the published paper and new student's work extended what I did last summer, since at that time the lab we were working with and waiting for additional samples did not come out soon enough, so I could not run the full simulation for a conclusive number of samples. The new student did a follow up and wrote additional code for different regimes and cases of the phenomena we were studying, and the result got tied up to some older work the professor previously did which ended up getting published.

The professor also said that the actual paper for the base work I did, is not ready for publish until at least next Spring, although it is something that the grad student he is mentoring (and who I worked with) will be including in his PhD thesis.

My question here, and just because I want to be careful, as I've heard horror stories of undergraduates whose work never got published although they asked beforehand to be included in the paper, and two I also want to see the work I had done eventually be published.

Is it technically legal to include or defer the paper an undergraduate helped work on to include it until the completion of the graduate student's thesis? I ask this because I am unsure whether the paper is indeed very far from true completion, or if there is the possibility of delay to help extend the graduate student's thesis, and that the undergraduate intern becomes the sacrificial lamb for the grad student/future students.

Once again, I want to be absolutely clear I am not trying to antagonize the professor, I just want to defend my interests clearly, since graduate school applications are highly competitive, and it would be nice to have a paper published before the end of the applications. I understand that the bulk of the work/lion's share of the paper's analysis are usually done by the professors. But at the same time, it's true that predatory practices do occur, and seeing as I'm on an important segment of time on my applications, I need to make sure whether I can distinguish if this is the case or not. I also hate to be the person suspecting things, but you can't say pathological examples don't happen at all in the field of research. That's basically my rationale for asking these things.

On the other hand, on my side, it is more as you said, going back through my emails that I only told the professor that I didn't think there would be time to immediately discuss the writeups of the paper and hoped the paper would be put on hold because of classes and the start of the school year, and I didn't actually pay attention to whether the professor agreed or not.

In addition, I've attached an email for better reference, with important names and research information blotted out, of course.

 

[Michael13]

Also it may be the newer student put the paper together with the profs name and your contribution fell by the wayside.

Also its possible that the new student had extended your work and then the prof thought it was solely their work.

Yes, as for the published paper, that turned out to be the case after I asked the professor.

 

[Michael13]

Some questions to ask yourself:
1. What do you want to happen now? Is it realistic?
2. Can you defend the scientific results of the paper?
3. How much of this 2-1/2 months did you spend on this particular project? How much of this time was spent learning and how much contributing?
4. Is it likely that this work had to be redone?

We don't need to know this - but you should.

On point #4, it is not unusual to find that after a summer student leaves, nobody else canm reproduce what they did, and the work therefore needs to be redone. This doesn't mean that the student did anything wrong or a bad job, but in science if you can't reproduce it, it didn't happen.

I just obtained a response from the professor, see the email I attached under my response to Dr.AbeNiklanEdl.
Although I do agree with you as for point 4, I think that's a good piece of advice for me to be aware of and take into the future.

 

[Vanadium 50]

horror stories

legal

predatory

Drama is not your friend here.

From what I can tell, you do not deserve authorship, and for some journals it would be a violation of scientific ethics to include you. An acknowledgement may or may not be appropriate.

Those who submit papers to APS publications should respect the value of the research of their peers by not devaluing authorship. Each author should have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the design, conduct, analysis, or interpretation of the study. Each author must approve the article before it is submitted for review, as well as the final version of the article to be published, and be willing to take public responsibility for his or her contribution to the paper. In addition, the first author and the corresponding author are expected to take public responsibility for the entire paper

Based on what you said, it does not sound like you meet these requirements. The fact that you originally thought your work was included in an entirely different paper (which apparently did not)

am not trying to antagonize the professor,

It may be too late. I think the real risk is not that you antagonize him, it's what his honest assessment (what a LoR) is will say.

"Michael worked in my lab for a summer. He was technically quite skilled, but it was clear that he was more interested in careerism and credit than in the actual results of the research. Our conversations following the summer revolved around who would take credit for what, and not how the research as a whole was going or what physics we were learning. He was far more concerned about what I could do for him than what he would be learning over the summer"

You may well have taken a step backwards.

 

[jedishrfu]

Working in graduate studies can be extremely stressful as you've noted having the feeling that someone else took credit for your work and you're not getting a coauthorship on the paper. You run into many different kinds of people when doing this research: some who will mentor you and provide you with a chance to shine, and others who will take whatever you've done and include themselves as the principal investigator.

Some of the well-known astronomy papers were like that, where the women grad students were deprived of their authorship on seminal discoveries:

https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/unsung-heroines/

This is why it's important for grad students to select their advisors carefully.

—-

My brother was in a nightmare situation like this where the professor lost interest in his work, and he plodded along until a senior professor started asking why this professor's grad students weren't graduating. It turns out, he would lose interest in a topic and leave the student dangling. Some of my brother's fellow grad students just decided to quit the program or chose to jump to another school, losing a few years during the restart in the process. My brother persevered and got his degree with the help of that senior professor.

—-

In another case, my niece, while working on her thesis based on earlier work by her professor and by his prior grad students, discovered that the prior papers were wrong. There was no such biological effect that she was trying to characterize, and consequently, her paper debunked the others instead of discovering something new and interesting. The dept held off approving and publishing her paper until her professor got promoted to dept head about nine months later.

One curious hiccup in her research was when one of the two genetically bred expensive mice with a specific gene spliced into their genome didn't have the spliced gene. It bollocks up her measurements until they discovered the reason. In the end, she had to drop the tainted measurements, putting her even further behind and limiting her data analysis to one mouse.

I never heard if the other papers were retracted or not. However, I'm sure he would have retracted them if necessary. I met him, and he was a pretty honorable long-suffering-the-abuse-of-his-grad- students type of advisor.

—-

One hidden thing about academic journals is that they want to publish positive results. Researchers understand this preference, so they often drop negative results of earlier experiments and only publish the experiment that supports the premise. In one case, the researchers had five failed experiments and the sixth succeeded and so that the one they published.

 

[Dr.AbeNikIanEdL]

Is it technically legal to include or defer the paper an undergraduate helped work on to include it until the completion of the graduate student's thesis?

From what you write it seems to me as follows: You made some contribution to the research of the group, that might eventually be included in a paper. I don't think I have enough information to comment on whether you should be in the author list of that, but it is anyway not judged to be enough for a publication in itself. So I don't see how you can demand a lot in terms of timelines, you pretty much rely on someone else doing the remaining (and likely the bulk of) work.

Just aside, being from Europe I am not very familiar with US grad school applications, but wouldn't those be due soonish? As in, even if you started writing a paper now it would be unlikely to be published in time to be included in you applications, wouldn't it?

 

[Michael13]

Working in graduate studies can be extremely stressful as you've noted having the feeling that someone else took credit for your work and you're not getting a coauthorship on the paper. You run into many different kinds of people when doing this research: some who will mentor you and provide you with a chance to shine, and others who will take whatever you've done and include themselves as the principal investigator.

Some of the well-known astronomy papers were like that, where the women grad students were deprived of their authorship on seminal discoveries:

https://www.newscientist.com/gallery/unsung-heroines/

This is why it's important for grad students to select their advisors carefully.

—-

My brother was in a nightmare situation like this where the professor lost interest in his work, and he plodded along until a senior professor started asking why this professor's grad students weren't graduating. It turns out, he would lose interest in a topic and leave the student dangling. Some of my brother's fellow grad students just decided to quit the program or chose to jump to another school, losing a few years during the restart in the process. My brother persevered and got his degree with the help of that senior professor.

—-

In another case, my niece, while working on her thesis based on earlier work by her professor and by his prior grad students, discovered that the prior papers were wrong. There was no such biological effect that she was trying to characterize, and consequently, her paper debunked the others instead of discovering something new and interesting. The dept held off approving and publishing her paper until her professor got promoted to dept head about nine months later.

One curious hiccup in her research was when one of the two genetically bred expensive mice with a specific gene spliced into their genome didn't have the spliced gene. It bollocks up her measurements until they discovered the reason. In the end, she had to drop the tainted measurements, putting her even further behind and limiting her data analysis to one mouse.

I never heard if the other papers were retracted or not. However, I'm sure he would have retracted them if necessary. I met him, and he was a pretty honorable long-suffering-the-abuse-of-his-grad- students type of advisor.

—-

One hidden thing about academic journals is that they want to publish positive results. Researchers understand this preference, so they often drop negative results of earlier experiments and only publish the experiment that supports the premise. In one case, the researchers had five failed experiments and the sixth succeeded and so that the one they published.

Hi, sorry for the late reply. School was just starting this week, so I was busy with taking care of some administrative issues with classes and tuition, but yeah you raise a really valid point. While I believe academia should be as objective as possible, the human element is really hard to ignore, and I do think that there are very real cases where interactions between professors/advisors and students have or can go wrong. Also, I'm sorry to hear about what happened to your niece, I do hope she found a better advisor or eventually got some research published though!
On the other hand, on my side, after some more talking with the professor I worked with, it seems as if there had been miscommunications on both sides(mainly my side), so it's a benign case in comparison.

 

[Michael13]

From what you write it seems to me as follows: You made some contribution to the research of the group, that might eventually be included in a paper. I don't think I have enough information to comment on whether you should be in the author list of that, but it is anyway not judged to be enough for a publication in itself. So I don't see how you can demand a lot in terms of timelines, you pretty much rely on someone else doing the remaining (and likely the bulk of) work.

Just aside, being from Europe I am not very familiar with US grad school applications, but wouldn't those be due soonish? As in, even if you started writing a paper now it would be unlikely to be published in time to be included in you applications, wouldn't it?

Yes, the grad school applications will be due mid-December. I'm still thinking about how to go along those lines. I do understand if I wrote a paper right now it would not be published, but it would be helpful for one more letter of recommendation if I could do some research with another professor before the deadline hits. The main issue with the original research was that I was hoping it could have been published in a paper at least 1 year after the work, now I understand that even 1 year might be too fast for a paper publication.

 

[CrysPhys]

Yes, the grad school applications will be due mid-December. I'm still thinking about how to go along those lines. I do understand if I wrote a paper right now it would not be published, but it would be helpful for one more letter of recommendation if I could do some research with another professor before the deadline hits. The main issue with the original research was that I was hoping it could have been published in a paper at least 1 year after the work, now I understand that even 1 year might be too fast for a paper publication.

<<Emphasis added.>> Not sure I understand you correctly. In a few days it will be Oct 1. Your applications are due mid Dec. So you plan to start research with another professor and get a letter of recommendation based on at most two months work?

 

[Vanadium 50]

and get a letter of recommendation based on at most two months work?

The original work was over a summer. Also around 2 months work.

 

[Michael13]

<<Emphasis added.>> Not sure I understand you correctly. In a few days it will be Oct 1. Your applications are due mid Dec. So you plan to start research with another professor and get a letter of recommendation based on at most two months work?

Yes, that's correct. It's not ideal, and the results of the letter might not carry as strong of an impact, but I believe it is better than doing nothing. Otherwise, if there is a better alternative at this point, I am up for any additional suggestions, and am still thinking about other things to try.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why do you want a RhD - a research degree - if your only goal in research is careerism? The answer to this may well determine the best next step for you.

 

[Michael13]

Why do you want a RhD - a research degree - if your only goal in research is careerism? The answer to this may well determine the best next step for you.

I'd say that's not a strictly true assessment. To say that my only goal in research is careerism, although I might have given off this impression from the post. In this case (the topic of the post), I admit I let careerism get the better of me. But from a larger perspective I enjoy doing physics, I want to be able to solve more difficult and interesting problems, so that I can one day independently do research as well as collaborate with other researchers, to contribute to the current body and knowledge of physics, and that's the primary reason why I want a research degree.

 

[Vanadium 50]

You might think about skipping this cycle. That would

• Give time for your prior work to be published
• Give you more time for research experience
• Allow your 2nd semester grades to be considered
• Give you time to demonstrate that you are more interested in the research than the credit
• Give you time to work on your writing - if people are misinterpreting you here, what makes you think the admissions committee won't too?
• Possibly integrade some money - you'd be surprised at how much easier grad school life can be if you have some money in the bank. ("I can have macaroni AND cheese!")

 

[Michael13]

Yeah, I've been thinking about this lately. If applications are not looking particularly strong this year, I might take an additional year to get some solid(and longer) research down, although when you talk about integrating money for grad school, do you just mean applying for scholarships or TA/RAing for professors?

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'm talking about working for pay and putting the money in the bank.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'm talking about working for pay and putting the money in the bank.

So I am assuming you are suggesting that the OP take a "gap year" and work full-time for a year before applying to grad school. Is that correct?

If so, then a question for you. Will physics graduate programs look kindly to applicants who take a gap year?

 

[jedishrfu]

Likely less so since it indicates a more casual view of serious studies. Also, your technical skills suffer from a slight decline.

 

[Vanadium 50]

A "gap year" is something else - it's a year between high school and college. And yes, it can indicate flakiness and a lack of direction. But graduate school is different - it is much, much more common to do something after one's bachelors and some fields and programs it is even expected.

Can I promise that nobody on any committee anywhere will dislike it? Of course not Is it worth considering? Absolutely. For the reasons I gave.

 

[CrysPhys]

So I am assuming you are suggesting that the OP take a "gap year" and work full-time for a year before applying to grad school. Is that correct?

If so, then a question for you. Will physics graduate programs look kindly to applicants who take a gap year?

The issue is not that there is a one-year interval between the senior year and the grad school application per se. The issue is what the student does during that one year, and the relative merits of an application filed now (based on the student's current record) vs. an application filed a year from now (based on the student's future record) .

I mentioned an example in another post. I served as an industry mentor for a physics undergrad. In her senior year, she hadn't found her calling, and likely would not have had a compelling application for a physics PhD program. Instead, she got a job as a research assistant for a company that designs and manufactures accelerators for medical treatments. A year or so in, she found her calling, and applied for PhD medical physics programs, and was accepted to a top program.