Just a quick question regarding authorship. Recently, a PI won a grant, which was used to buy some computer equipment (~$1000 piece of computation equipment along with some other equipment not relevant to the post).

I am a student that has been using the piece of equipment, as it was not being used by their students.

I am now going to be submitting a manuscript, which used the equipment as mentioned above. Does this entail the PI who won the funds to pay for it authorship? Or, as I believe, just acknowledgment (for both the grant and the PI who won it)?

EDIT: I should note, my research has nothing to do whatsoever with the PI’s grant or their research.

Some time ago I started my Ph.D. and my project was to attempt again to investigate a problem that a colleague (a senior Ph.D.) had failed to investigate because he lacked numerical/coding skills to attack the problem. Essentially our advisor put me to work on a line of research that senior phd had abandoned, and I started from his (few) old results, spent 9 months writing code and running the simulations, and finally obtained some interesting results. Senior PhD, though he mostly contributed with discussions and one plot, casually claimed co-first-authorhip by asking to our advisor when I was not there, but the request was refused.

For the last 6 months we worked on a natural continuation of the previous research. Senior phd insisted to collaborate intensely at the beginning and for the first month we surely did, but later he was caught by other things (writing 2 other papers, writing the PhD dissertation..) and I continued my work alone with a PostDoc. SeniorPhd always attended discussions.

It is now time to start writing the paper, and he said he would write it, as he has alredy written part of those results in his dissertation and because he writes faster than me (so we can publish before other groups) . I politely refused during the meeting, so he offered to co-write the results with me.

Our advisor ignored the issues and pushed to move onto other topics.

After that meeting, senior Ph.D. started to ask me to explain a few things that he still did not get about the method, and I explained him. He then proceeded to make a few very quick simulations to produce the first 2 figures of the paper and presented those to the PostDoc a few hours after I was done explaining him.

I felt as if he is trying to force himself as first author/coauthor by simply starting to write a research in which he did not do the majority of the work.

All the data is in a shared drive, so in principle, he could write everything up.

How can I confront the issue without looking like an asshole who refuses to be helped by a very kind collegue?

This is an update of a query that I had asked few months ago: Co-authorship just because a Professor provides me the employment?
In fact I have even adopted some of the suggestions given by @Magicsowon there.

I was advised to make the question to the point, and not include any extra information. This is why I am posting it afresh here with only relevant information and also some new information as the situation has evolved since then.

I have worked as a postdoc in a European university for 6 months. The topic of my research was suggested by my boss and his collaborator, Prof. M. That was their contribution. After that, I went through more than 50-60 papers to find the right paper to build my work on. I have developed the theory and I have finished the computational part. Now, I am writing the paper.

A good analogy would be, it was like going to a conference and there one hears about an interesting problem that deserves serious investigation.

While developing the theory, I sent many drafts containing my derived equations to my main collaborator (my boss), but he hardly commented on them, none useful feedback from him. I do not think he had even read them seriously. Considering that a postdoc is essentially an unsupervised position, and the potential of co-authorship dispute in the future, I sent him a couple of emails asking him to help me with certain aspect of the theory and computational aspect. But, he did not provided any help to me. He had a regular comment during every meeting we had,

“I am aware, I should more actively contribute to the work, but as you can see I am busy with meetings. And I am sure, you can fix this problem.”

Also, he did not gave me sufficient freedom to collaborate with other researchers. So, having no help coming from anywhere, I resigned from the job. I had implicitly mentioned to him as well as to the head of the dept. in my resignation email that I had worked all by myself during the 6 months stay at their department, and also that I can do the remaining work by myself. No objection was raised on that from anyone.

Now, I am writing the paper, and my plan is:

1) Write the paper as a single author under the affiliation of the former department where I had finished almost 40% of the work. I cannot gift co-authorship for my hard work of 6-months to anyone as I did not received any major/minor help from anyone. I have checked, this is consistent with the Vancouver recommendations.

2) I will acknowledge my boss and Prof. M in the acknowledgement section of the paper for suggesting me the topic of research. Note: I had just met Prof. M in a conference for 30 minutes or so, we had general discussion about the topic of research. No specific discussion regarding the work I did, no mail correspondence between him and me. However if I am not wrong, he is the actual brain behind the project, and I had tried to visit him and collaborate with him closely. But my boss did not facilitated that either. Also, note that my boss and Prof. M have worked together in most of their papers in the last 2-3 years. And my boss is the director of a research unit in which Prof. M is a member too.

3) I will also acknowledge the research unit of my boss for funding the research.

Is it fair, honest and sufficient? If the paper is published, can he claim authorship by writing to the editor? I am pretty sure he can almost show nothing about the evidence of the contribution other than suggesting the topic of research, if asked.

And the traces of this problem have off shoot to become another problem. See, Acknowledgment of funding and adding an affiliation in exchange of permission to use experimental data?

Now, say authors A and B are writing their second paper. Which is more appropriate, or which sounds better. Referring to their previous work as “we researched/we surveyed” or “the authors researched/surveyed”. This warrants a question because, in the first case, it may sound like they are “broadcasting” their presence, while in the second case, it seems like they are “hiding” their identity.

Although, the following questions 1 (which applies for a single author case) and 2 (which refers to when there may be many authors but some of them may not share co-authorship in a new publication) are similar, they are quite different from what is intended here. Also question 3 is quite close, but I guess the question applies for use in a thesis.

I have written a systematic review which all words are extremely mine. Another colleague told me the idea of writing this review and just carried the systematic search and did not participate in any other parts, such as design and outline of the study, interpretations, edition or even extracting the results from the reviewed articles.
I would like to know whether his contribution is significant enough to consider him as an author or not.
Thanks.

I have found an interesting article that I want to cite in my work.

However, the identity of the person who wrote this isn’t written anywhere. GNUCitizens seems to be some kind of organisation that publishes articles but does not disclose a lot of information regarding the people behind it.

There is also no publish/revision date, no internal sources, whatsoever.

What tricks me is that this article is well-known and often referred to in information security domains.

Should I cite it just as “GNU Citizens” ? Should I drop it and use something else ?

I have found an interesting article that I want to citate in my work.

However, the identity of the person who wrote this isn’t written anywhere. GNUCitizens seems to be some kind of organisation that publishes articles but do not disclose a lot of informations regarding the people behind it.

There is also no publish/revision date, no internal sources, whatsoever.

What tricks me is that this article is well-known and often referred to in information security domains.

Should I citate it just as “GNU Citizens” ? Should I drop it and use something else ?