Publishing
The Department encourages PhD students to consider publishing papers in academic journals and other outlets while engaged in their PhDs. Publication of work is an important part of the research process - it is in a student’s interests, and indeed, it is an expectation, that students will seek to disseminate the findings from their research, e.g. through conference publications and research papers. This should be undertaken in consultation and discussion with the supervisory team.
The benefits of writing for publication include:
Helping to crystallise ideas, especially during data analysis
Obtaining feedback on one's work
Contributing to academic debates - especially valuable for those considering an academic career
Developing relevant skills for a student, especially if you plan an academic career
Addressing one of the requirements for a thesis: that it is work of publishable standard
Disseminating research outputs and ensuring impact
Contributing to the department's research output
Supervisors can help advise on what might make a good paper, where to send it, and how to deal with the academic review process. Where a paper is based on a student's own research work, the student will normally be the lead (or sole) author on the paper. When considering whether to write for publication, however, students and supervisors should be mindful of the time commitment this entails, and need to ensure that work on material for publication does not come at the expense of timely completion of the PhD. If you are thinking of writing for publication, it is therefore important that you discuss this carefully with your supervisor before embarking on the paper.
All students considering publication of their work are advised to read the advice on publication in the Research Partnerships and Innovation Code of Practice: https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/rpi/pgr/examination/prior-publishing
Best practice in managing relationships between co-authors.
Why this is needed:
To provide clarity on what level of contribution to a research output warrants being named as an author;
To provide guidelines on how to decide fairly on author ‘order’ in co-authored publications;
To set acceptable norms for managing co-authorship relationships, including between: PGRs and supervisors; principal investigators and contract researchers; and senior and junior academic staff.
Context:
Publication of research work is a core part of the academic enterprise. It contributes both to knowledge and to academics’ personal satisfaction and interests, professional standing, and career prospects. To be recognised as an author of published work, and to gain credit for that work, is therefore a crucial and highly valued part of academic life. However, questions over the proper attribution of authorial contribution and order can raise difficult issues, not least over:
Who has a right to be named as an author on a piece of research work;
What the proper relationship is between co-authors, and how that might be managed;
(Particularly in disciplines where the order in which authors are named on a publication reflects the relative credit they receive for the work) Who should be first author on a publication;
Whether, and under what conditions, supervisors should publish with their PGR students;
All of these issues can become sites of conflict and of the inappropriate exercise of power, with all the potential for untoward biases and discrimination that entails. It makes sense, therefore, to have transparent guidelines on ‘good practice’ on authorship.
Guidelines:
We adhere to the University of Sheffield’s guidelines for good practice in research and authorship https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/rpi/pgr/examination/prior-publishing .
As far as possible, we should follow the ‘Vancouver Guidelines’ on authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html). The guidelines set out criteria for who should be counted as an author of a publication. To be a named author on a piece of work, an individuals should be able to show they: have made a substantial contribution to either the conceptualisation and research design for the published research, or to obtaining and analysing the material on which the research is based; AND have been involved in drafting and/or critically evaluating the content of the publication; AND have given their approval to the final version of the published work; AND agree to share responsibility for the integrity, accuracy, etc. of the published work. They should be able to show a contribution in all of these areas.
Except where demonstrable disciplinary or journal norms mandate a particular policy on author order (e.g. alphabetical ordering), the first-named author on a publication should be the individual who has made the largest contribution to developing that publication.
Author order on a publication should not reflect e.g. seniority or status within the wider research project. Principal investigators/senior colleagues have no automatic right to be first-named authors on papers coining out of their research projects. Junior colleagues, contract researchers and PGRs should be lead authors on publications to which they have made the main contribution. Discussions on relative contribution should be open, transparent and accountable.
Author order should be agreed before work is submitted for publication, and should only reflect relative contribution.
When working across disciplines, it can sometimes be necessary to negotiate between conflicting disciplinary norms on authorship. Such discussions should take place and an agreement be reached before writing begins, to avoid subsequent disputes. Those agreements should respect the spirit of this policy: that authorship should reflect contribution to the publication, and that PGRs and ECRs in particular should be protected to ensure they receive due credit and prominence for their contributions.
Wherever possible, we encourage our PGR students to publish from their doctoral research and from other research they conduct.
In some circumstances it is appropriate or desirable for PGRs, MA students or even UG students to publish with their supervisors. However, supervisors should be co-authors with their students only when the supervisors’ contribution to the published work meets the ‘Vancouver criteria’ above: simply offering normal supervisory advice and feedback on a draft is not sufficient to warrant a supervisor being a co-author.
Where supervisors and PGR students co-author publications emerging from the PGR’s research, the PGR will normally be the lead author.
Should any member of the Department feel the guidelines above have been breached, they should report the issue to the Department’s Director of Research or to the Director of Postgraduate Research. In the event that this raises a possible conflict of interests, colleagues should take the issue to the Head of Department, or to the Faculty Director of Doctoral Training or Director of Research.