In our September “how can we help you?” thread, a reader asks:
I’ve seen a few cases where students or postdocs were asked to write up their supervisors’ paper ideas and coauthor with them. These include papers on “controversial” topics that, in the worst cases, might affect the student’s reputation in the field and affect their ability to get a job in the future, but it seems to me that they might not feel comfortable saying no.
So I wonder how search committees look at such cases. Is there a serious chance that such cases could damage early-career philosophers’ reputations? (In that case, as publications and post-docs experience are increasingly expected, it seems we need to have a serious conversation about the ethics of coauthoring.) Or do search committees take any account of these power dynamics when evaluating applicants’ coauthored works? (Coauthored works seem to be heavily discounted in evaluations, anyway, so maybe that mitigates the damage that could be caused…)
I think a serious conversation about the ethics of co-authoring–and specifically cases like these–is a great idea. Any thoughts from readers? (Please ensure that comments respect the Cocoon’s mission: this is not a place to identify individuals/make allegations, etc.)
Leave a Reply