role of co guide in phd

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to footer

Tress Academic

#80: Do I have to include my supervisor as a co-author?

February 9, 2021 by Tress Academic

The co-authorship of supervisors on papers of their PhD students is a hot topic in academia. Should they be included or not? All sorts of rules, conventions, and rumours seem to exist. Let’s clarify a few of them here!  

1. Why worry about co-authorship of supervisors?

Oh dear, when we started to look into the question of whether PhD supervisors should be included as co-authors on a paper, we had no idea what kind of discussion we’d end up in. Of course, we always had our own opinion on it, but let us explain the situation: The question regarding whether PhD students should or must include their supervisors as co-authors/main author on the paper is a question that we get asked in almost every other course. Last time this question came up was only last week in one of our writing courses. So it must be a question of great interest to early-career researchers and PhD students! But it must also be a question that displays a lot of insecurity and perplexity. 

The answer to this question seems to be so easy because there are clear rules about what makes somebody an author on a paper and what does not. Ethical bodies dealing with publication ethics, like the COPE, CSE or ICMJE (see below) provide great guidance about authorship, and most journal publishers have adopted their suggestions. So it should be clear who is expected to be credited as an author and who is not. But having discussed it so many times in courses with students, we know a simple YES or a NO on the question above is not enough. So, we’re not providing a simple answer here either.  

2. The case of Rebecca and her supervisor

Rebecca is a 3rd year student in a biology programme and she told us her story: She is doing exciting research in a field that she loves. She’s highly motivated and brings a lot of energy and effort to her PhD work. The regulations of her university, where she will hopefully get awarded a PhD soon, require that she has to write and publish three papers in international peer-reviewed journals. Rebecca’s research is going fine, she is progressing well, and is just about one and a half months behind her original schedule for her PhD. She’s in a good mood and optimistic to bring the research work to an end, to get the papers published, and complete the degree. But she still has one big problem: She has no idea if she should include her supervisor as co-author on the paper.      

She spoke to many fellow PhD students and Postdocs and asked for their advice. The stories she heard were so diverse that she still has no idea how to do it right. Some suggested the supervisor has to be on every paper, while others said they wrote their papers totally without them, got no input and, consequently, did not include them as co-author. Another suggestion was to include the supervisor as the main author, even if they contributed very little because it might be helpful to have a “big name” as a first author on the paper. A former PhD student told Rebecca that in his lab, it was a “must” to include the supervisor as the last author on all the papers, regardless of whether they were written by Master students, PhD students or Postdocs. One friend directed Rebecca to another friend who did a PhD and included the supervisor on all his papers because he was afraid that if he didn’t do it, it would affect the successful completion of his doctorate. 

3. Is Rebecca a solitary case? 

No! We spoke to many people like Rebecca and it was surprising how diverse the advice was that students like her had received. But as diverse as the single stories are, they have one common thread: Co-authorship of supervisors on the papers of their PhD students seems to be dominated by confusion, fears, and a lack of communication. 

You can browse the web and you will find many references and cases that deal with all sorts of problems, opinions, conventions, and misconduct in the PhD student-supervisor relationship with regard to co-authorship on publications (see e.g. Find a PhD 2014 , Thompson 2017,  Academia Stackexchange 2018 ). Cases are even reported where supervisors either neglect to co-author with their students, or where they publish work from their PhD students without even considering the student as co-author (e.g. COPE 2010 ,  Hayter & Watson 2017 ). So, it is definitely a tense field in which we’re operating when trying to answer this question.

4. Who is an author on a paper?  

Luckily, you can find clear instructions in publication ethics guidelines. According to them, an author on a paper is somebody who has contributed to the research, written parts of the paper, reviewed successive manuscript versions, and taken part in the revision process. Sole provision of research funding or carrying out routine based activities that are linked to the research presented in a paper does not qualify for authorship ( COPE 2000 , CSE 2012 , ICMJE 2019 ).  

So let’s go back to our question: Do you have to include your supervisor as co-author on your papers? The answer is YES and NO!

5. No! Supervisors should not be included as co-authors!

There is no rule that says PhD supervisors have to be a co-author on a paper of their PhD students. So, you don’t have to include your supervisor due to one of the cases described below: 

• Just because they happen to be your supervisor. 
• They are in a hierarchically higher academic position than you.
• They are well-known and respected in the field.
• You think you have to be grateful and pay back your supervisor.
• You’ve been told that it is always done like that in your field. 
• You’ll feel guilty if you don’t include them as co-author. 
• You fear a negative impact on your PhD if you don’t do it.
• You have applied for a PhD position at your supervisor’s lab/institute and think you’re obliged to include them.  
• They provide funding for your project.  

6. YES! Supervisors should be included as co-authors!

We do not suggest that your supervisors have to be excluded in all circumstances from your paper. No! There are very valid and compelling reasons that make your supervisor a co-author on your paper, e.g. if …

• they contributed to your work
• they contributed to your writing
• they were advising you on the steps of the writing process
• if they provided substantial intellectual support for the work you publish
• if they provided substantial input to help you with the revision of the paper  

In the cases reported above, your supervisor is a natural co-author, and withdrawing their right to become a co-author would be a violation of publishing ethics. 

7. How to avoid a co-authorship dispute

Rebecca’s problem in the case reported above is obvious: She was never involved in any discussion with her supervisor about co-authorship on any of the three papers she has to do. She kept silent, and the supervisor didn’t initiate a talk about it. Both are operating on the assumption that things will work out in their interest. 

Another question deals with how far supervisors involve themselves in the research of their PhD students, and how much support they offer, but this is a different question which we’re not going to discuss at this time. Regardless of whether the supervisor has contributed a lot or only very little, it would have been wise for both PhD student and supervisor to sit together and get the co-authorship question out of the way. 

For Rebecca, it would have been helpful to get familiar with the rules that apply to her institute or faculty. She could speak to somebody at the university who can advise her independently. 

A good way to avoid the hassle and frustration from unsettled authorship-disputes would be to take the PhD student-supervisor relationship seriously, and let both sides do what they’re supposed to do: The supervisor is providing a supportive framework and involves themself in the student’s work only insofar as they allow the student to grow and reach their goal. Get your supervisor involved in your work, and then co-authorship will never be questioned.This would be mutually beneficial, and would provide benefits to both parties.

We hope that this article has helped you get a clearer idea of YOUR answer regarding the question of whether to include YOUR supervisor on your papers or not. Make a good decision, and then move on with your good work! 

Relevant resources: 

• Academia Stackexchange 2018. Telling PhD supervisor I published a paper about my thesis without telling them or listing them as authors?
• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics), 2000. The COPE Report 1999. Guidelines on good publication practice. Family Practice 17, 218-221.
• COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) 2010: Supervisor published PhD students work.  
• CSE (Scott-Lichter, D., the Editorial Policy Committee, Council of Science Editors) 2012. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update. 3rd Revised Edition. Wheat Ridge, CO.
• Find a PhD, 2014. Co-authorship with the supervisor.  
• Haytor, M., Watson, R. 2017. Supervisors are morally obliged to publish with their PhD students.
• ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors), 2019. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. Updated version April 2019.
• Thompson, P. 2017: Co–writing with your supervisor – the authorship question . 

More information: 

Do you want to successfully write and publish a journal paper? If so, please sign up to receive our free guides.  

© 2021 Tress Academic

#authorship, #WritingPapers, #PaperWriting, #publishing #journals, #supervision, #coauthor #PhD

• Announcements
• Research funding

Role of the (co)supervisor(s)

The (co)supervisor(s) are responsible for supervising the PhD candidate.

Starting a PhD

Within three months of being appointed, the supervisor and co-supervisors, in consultation with the PhD candidate, draw up a study and supervision plan. The supervisors decide among themselves who will do what and they record this in writing.

Completing the PhD

The supervisors are responsible for the quality of the dissertation. They evaluate whether the manuscript meets the requirements for a PhD and re-evaluate any changes that have been agreed.

Approval of the dissertation

If the supervisors believe that the manuscript is ‘proof of competency in the independent conducting of scientific research’, they approve the manuscript within six weeks of it being submitted. Once the manuscript has been approved, the PhD candidate submits propositions to the supervisors. Once approved, the supervisors forward these to the Dean.

The PhD committee

• The supervisor asks the Dean (in Converis) to appoint the proposed members of the PhD committee. Supervisors may not be members of this committee.
• The secretary of the PhD committee sends the manuscript to the members of the PhD committee and receives their responses.
• Within six weeks of receipt of the dissertation, the members of the committee inform the secretary whether the candidate may be admitted to the defence.

The examining committee

• In the meantime, the supervisor puts forward proposals to the Dean (in Converis) regarding the composition of the examining committee. Supervisors may not be members of this committee. The Rector Magnificus and the Dean (or their appointed replacements) act as chair and secretary, respectively.
• The Dean appoints the members of the examining committee.
• After consulting the supervisors, the PhD candidate and the Dean, the beadle sets the date and time for the PhD ceremony.

Human Resources

• Working hours
• Business travel
• CAO and regulations
• Individual Choices Model
• Terms of employment in short
• Registration and contract
• Practical issues
• International staff
• University doctor
• Working with a functional limitation
• Mental fitness
• Work pressure
• Leiden Healthy University
• Self Service
• Confidential counsellors and complaints committees
• PSSC Service Point
• Service Centre International Staff
• Immigration and formalities
• Social life and settling in
• Taxes and social security
• Getting around
• Frequently asked questions
• Career guidance and mobility
• Teacher development
• PhD candidates and postdocs
• Code of conduct
• Recruitment and selection
• Diversity and inclusiveness
• Continuing education rules and regulations
• Confidential counsellors
• Staff ombuds officer
• Complaints committees
• Collective insurances
• Unfit for work
• Unemployment

Finance & Procurement

• Expense claims
• Other allowances
• Invoice payments
• Sales invoices, credit notes and receiving payments
• Payments without an invoice (by bank transfer, VVV gift card or cash), taxable remuneration (IB47)
• Payments to research participants
• Conferences and seminars
• Framework contracts
• Procurement procedures
• Service portal
• Research equipment
• Real estate
• University finances
• Financial planning and control cycles
• Regulations and guidelines
• Working for third parties
• Financial project management
• Department Financial Economic Affairs
• FSSC Service point
• Controllers
• University Procurement
• Audit department
• Synchronising mail and calendar
• Printing and copying
• Software and online tools
• Forgotten your password
• Activating and managing your account
• Additional authentication
• Applying for a guest/external account
• Office 365 and OneDrive
• Microsoft Teams
• Remote workspace
• Secure online workspace from home
• Application forms
• Helpdesks and contact
• Maintenance and incidents
• Research data
• IT and education > go to Education
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
• Archive management
• Personal data
• Working securely online

Buildings & Facilities

• Workplace in the office
• Reserving workstations
• Requesting facilities for working from home
• Laboratories
• Environmental awareness at work
• Post and Transport
• Breastfeeding and quiet rooms
• Reserving rooms
• Service desks and receptions
• Management and maintenance
• Floor plans and house rules
• Construction projects
• Ordering catering
• Faculty Club
• Restaurants and bars
• Vending machines
• Event locations
• Reporting unsafe situations
• ERO coordinators
• Health and safety coordinators
• Servicedesk and receptions
• Blended learning
• AI in education
• Digital tools
• Tools for interactive learning
• Lecture halls and computer rooms
• Evaluation of education
• The Programme Committee
• Board of Examiners
• Site visits and accreditation
• Vision on education
• Integrity and fraud
• Student success
• Degree programmes
• Educational support units
• ICT and education
• Library and education
• Internationalisation in education
• Accessible Education
• Tests and theses
• Giving a presentation
• Remote teaching
• Reserving equipment
• Referral options
• Unacceptable behaviour
• Training and workshops for staff
• Training and workshops for students
• Online self-help for students
• Bringing students together
• Background information on student well-being
• Comenius programme
• Teacher's Academy
• Contact about internationalisation
• Arrange partnership and exchange
• Sign up student and staff
• Safety abroad and crisis management
• Preparing for a trip: visa and Europass
• Academic calendar
• Course and Examination Regulations
• Studying for a PhD
• PhD ceremony
• After your PhD
• Career Platform
• Confidential Counsellor and university doctor
• Becoming a postdoc
• Collaborating with renowned researchers
• Training programmes, coaching and career guidance
• Practical support for internationals
• Confidential advisers, health & safety
• Research programme data science
• Collaboration Leiden-Delft-Erasmus
• Research internationalisation
• Find and prepare
• Prepare and write
• Grant awarded
• Research Support Portal
• Research Support Network
• Data storage
• Datamanagement
• Research software
• Sharing and sending files
• Publication tools
• Research from home
• Roadmap and examples
• Research visitations
• Academic integrity
• Ethics committees
• Publishing your doctoral dissertation
• Scholarly Publications and LUCRIS
• Open Access
• ORCID iD and DOI
• Leiden University Press

Communications & marketing

• Communication tools
• Media relations
• Science communication
• Bachelor recruitement
• Master recruitment
• Recruitment international students
• Alumni relations
• Alumni database
• House style
• Writing and translating
• Use of images
• Making a presentation
• Website and web editorial team
• Online profile page
• Social Media
• Conferences and Events
• Working securely: tips
• Privacy and security policy documents
• Learning platform
• Incidents and dangerous situations
• Safety in a lab
• Working with hazardous substances
• Emergency Response Officer
• Risk Inventory and Evaluation
• Camera surveillance

Select a different organisation

/images/cornell/logo35pt_cornell_white.svg" alt="role of co guide in phd"> Cornell University --> Graduate School

Advising guide for research students.

Success as a graduate student is a shared responsibility between students and faculty. For research students, the relationship with your research advisor, also known as your special committee chair, is extremely important. 

Your responsibility to identify and choose an advisor is one of the most critical tasks you have early in your graduate school career. It’s an opportunity to meet and get to know faculty in your field, to assess your needs for support and supervision, and to collaboratively define your goals, values, and strategic plan for your academic and professional career.

Graduate School Requirement

At Cornell, the faculty advisor in research degree programs is referred to as the special committee chair.

Doctoral students have a special committee of at least three Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and two minor committee members.

Master’s students have a special committee of at least two Cornell faculty, which includes the special committee chair and one minor member.

For both doctoral and master’s degree students, the special committee chair must be a graduate faculty member in the student’s own field.

Definition of an Advisor

Advising  and  mentoring  are often used interchangeably, but understanding the distinctions is important as you choose an advisor.

Advisor Responsibilities

• Guides you in meeting the requirements and expectations for your degree
• Required coursework
• Exams required by the graduate field or the Graduate School
• Research proposal/prospectus
• Research project
• Thesis or dissertation
• Writes informed letters of recommendation for your job applications
• May be a valued colleague or collaborator after you graduate

Mentor Responsibilities

• Provides support and guidance that extends beyond scope of advising
• Demystifies the structure, culture, and unstated expectations of graduate education
• Expands your professional network by introducing you to others
• Provides nominations for awards or other recognitions
• Brings job opportunities to your attention and writes letters of recommendation as you apply for jobs
• Advocates for you within the graduate program and discipline
• May serve as a role model and source of inspiration
• May become a colleague and peer in your discipline and may continue serving a mentoring role

Finding an Advisor

When do i select my first advisor.

At Cornell, the process for obtaining your first advisor varies by field.

Your faculty advisor may be assigned prior to your arrival or you may begin your program with a faculty member you met during the application process.

In some graduate fields, the faculty director of graduate studies (DGS) advises all incoming students. This provides you with time to get to know faculty in your field. By the end of the first semester or year (varying by field), it’s expected that you will have identified your own, long-term advisor. 

In fields where students apply to study with a specific faculty member (rather than do rotations and choose a lab or research group and advisor), you will have chosen an advisor prior to arriving on campus.

You can begin initial conversations about expectations and the advising relationship with your new advisor prior to the start of your program via email.

Start your graduate study and research with clear expectations and thoughtful communication about your plans for an effective advising relationship and success in graduate school.

How do I find an advisor? 

Meet and get to know faculty in your courses and in graduate field seminars and other events.

Talk to advanced students about their experiences and perceptions of the faculty in your programs and ask questions about possible advisors:

• How would you describe their approach to advising?
• What can you tell me about their work style?
• What can you tell me about their research interests?
• How good are their communication skills?
• How clear are their expectations for their graduate students?
• Do they use timeliness in reviewing their students’ writing and their approach to giving feedback?
• How available are they to meet with their graduate students?

After you have gathered information, make an appointment to meet with a potential advisor.

Possible Questions

• Is there a typical timeline you encourage your students to follow in completing their degree programs?
• How often do you meet with your students at different stages of their graduate program? (For example, during coursework, research, and writing stages)
• What are your expectations for students to make conference presentations and submit publications?
• What are your authorship policies? (This is especially relevant in fields where there is collaborative research and publishing involving the student and advisor or a group of students, postdocs, and faculty.)
• How soon should I identify my research project?
• How do you describe the degree of guidance and supervision you provide with regards to your students becoming more independent in their research and scholarship?
• If you are joining a lab or research group: What are the sources of funding for this research? Are there any new or pending research grants?
• How many of your students seek, and secure, external funding? What are your expectations for students to apply for external fellowships?
• Do you have a statement of advising you can share that lists our respective responsibilities and clarifies mutual expectations?
• What’s your advice on how students can manage what they find to be the biggest challenges in their graduate program?

Add other questions to your list based on your own needs and specifics of your program, such as questions about specialized equipment, lab safety, travel to field sites, support and accommodations for special health needs, communication during a faculty member’s sabbatical, funding in fields where there are fewer fellowships and research grants, etc.

Getting Other Mentoring Needs Met

How do i find other mentor(s) .

You may find one faculty member who can serve as both advisor and mentor, but that’s not always the case.

Consider identifying and cultivating additional mentors if that is the case. 

Suggestions on where to look for a mentor:

• The minor members of your special committee
• A faculty member who is not on your committee, and perhaps not even in your graduate field
• Peers and postdoctoral fellows who have knowledge and experience in pertinent issues

No one mentor can meet all your needs.

Good mentors have many emerging scholars they are working with and many other demands on their time, such as teaching, research, and university or professional service. They also may not have all the expertise you need, for example, if you decide to search for jobs in multiple employment sectors.

Develop a broad network of mentors whose expertise varies and who provide different functions based on your changing needs as you progress from new student to independent scholar and researcher.

NCFDD offers a webinar, “ Cultivating Your Network of Mentors, Sponsors, and Collaborators “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Maximizing the Advising Relationship

A successful relationship with your advisor depends on several different factors and varies with needs and working styles of the individuals. Some of these factors are under your control. But some are not. 

Suggestions for Building a Successful Advising Relationship

• Identify what you need from an advisor.
• Communicate clearly and frequently with your advisor to convey your questions, expectations, goals, challenges, and degree progress. Follow up verbal communication and meetings with an email detailing your understanding of what you both agreed to and next steps.
• Update your written academic plan each semester or whenever major changes or adjustments are needed.
• Consider including your plans to write competitive fellowship applications and co-authored grant proposals.
• Consider including  plans for professional development  that support your skill-building objectives and career goals.
• Recognize that you and your advisor have distinct perspectives, backgrounds, and interests. Share yours. Listen to your advisor’s. There is mutual benefit to sharing and learning from this diversity.
• Work with your advisor to define a regular meeting schedule. Prepare and send written materials in advance of each meeting. These could include: your questions, academic and research plan and timeline, and drafts of current writing projects, such as fellowship applications, manuscripts, or thesis/dissertation chapters.
• Be prepared to negotiate, show flexibility, and compromise, as is important for any successful relationship.
• Be as candid as you are comfortable with about your challenges and concerns. Seek guidance about campus and other resources that can help you manage and address any obstacles.
• Reach out to others for advice. Anticipate challenges and obstacles in your graduate degree program and their impact on the advising relationship.

Be proactive in finding resources and gathering information that can help you and your advisor arrive at solutions to any problems and optimize your time together.

Making Use of Meetings

First meetings.

Your first meeting sets the tone for a productive, satisfying, and enduring relationship with your advisor. Your first meeting is an opportunity to discuss expectations and to review a working draft of your academic plan.

Questions to ask about expectations

• What do your most successful students do to complete their degree on time?
• How often do you want us to meet?
• May I send you questions via email, or do you prefer I just come to your office?
• Would you like weekly (biweekly? monthly?) updates on my research progress?
• Do you prefer reviewing the complete draft of a manuscript or may I send you sections for feedback?
• After each meeting, I’ll make a list of what we each agreed to do before our next meeting, to help me keep moving forward with my research. Would you like a copy of that list, too, via email?

Draft Academic Plan

Prepare and bring a draft plan that outlines your “big picture” plans for your coursework, research, and writing, as well as an anticipated graduation date. (Or, email in advance with a message, such as, “I’m looking forward to meeting with you on [date] at [time], [location]. In advance, I’m sending a copy of my academic plan and proposed schedule for our discussion.”)

Contents of the plan

• Include the requirements and deadlines of your degree program. (This is information you should be able to find online or in your program’s graduate student handbook.)
• Include a general timeline indicating when you plan to meet requirements for courses or seminars, any required papers (such as a second-year paper), exams required by the graduate field (such as the Q exam) or by the Graduate School (the A exam and the B exam for research degree students).
• If your graduate field has a specific set of required courses, indicate the semester you may complete each of them, and be open to suggestions from your advisor.
• If your field does not have required courses, have some idea about the courses you are interested in taking and solicit input and suggestions from your faculty advisor.

Subsequent Meetings

Use each subsequent meeting as an opportunity to update your written academic plan and stay on track to complete your required papers and exams, your research proposal or prospectus, and the chapters or articles that comprise your thesis or dissertation.

In later meetings, you can elaborate on your general initial plan:

• Adding specific coursework or seminars
• Add professional development opportunities that interest you (workshops, dissertation writing boot camp, Summer Success Symposium, Colman Leadership Program, etc.)
• Include intentions to participate in external conferences and travel to research sites
• Identify a semester or summer when you would like to complete an internship.

Your written plan is also important to document what your advisor has agreed to, especially when the deadline to submit a manuscript or your thesis is looming and you are awaiting feedback or approval from your advisor. Use a combination of oral and written communications to stay in touch with your advisor, establish common expectations, and mark your progress toward degree completion.

Meeting Frequency

The frequency of meetings between advisors and advisees varies by field and individual. Assess your own needs and understand your advisor’s expectations for frequency of communication (in person and via email).

• Does your advisor like to provide guidance each step of the way so that he or she is aware of the details of everything you are doing?
• Does your advisor want you to launch your work more independently and report back at pre-determined or regular intervals?
• What do you need to be productive? Are you ready to work more independently?

Be proactive in seeking information. Explicitly ask how often your advisor usually meets with new students and how the advisor prefers to be updated on your progress in between meetings. Ask your peers how frequently they meet with their advisor and whether this has changed over time.

There will be disciplinary differences in meeting frequency.

• In humanities and in some social sciences, where library, archive, and field research take students away from campus, maintaining regular communication is essential, including through scheduled meetings, whether in-person or virtual.
• In life sciences and physical sciences and engineering, students often see their advisors daily in the lab or meet as a research group about externally funded projects; these regular check-ins and conversations may replace formal meetings. Make sure that you are also scheduling one-on-one times to talk about your broader goals and academic and career planning progress, however.

Some of your decisions about meeting frequency will be informed by talking to others, but much of it you learn through experience working together with your advisor. Even this will  change over time  as you become a more independent researcher and scholar. Communicate with your advisor regularly about your changing needs and expectations at each stage of your graduate career.

Resolving Conflict

In any relationship, there can be conflict. And, in the advisor-advisee relationship, the power dynamic created by the supervision, evaluation and, in some cases, funding role of your advisor can make conflicts with your advisor seem especially high.

You have options, however, including:

• Code of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty
• Campus Code of Conduct
• Policy on Academic Misconduct
• Research Misconduct
• Graduate School Grievance Policy
• Intellectual Property policies
• Graduate Student Assistantships (Policy 1.3)
• Talking with your advisor to clarify any miscommunication. Cornell University’s Office of the Ombudsman , one of the offices on campus that offers confidentiality, can also assist you by talking through the issue and helping you gather information you need before you speak directly with your advisor.
• Speaking with someone in the Graduate School, either the associate dean for academics ( [email protected] ) for academic issues, or the associate dean for graduate student life ( [email protected] ) for other issues. These deans will listen, offer advice and support, and coach you through any conversation you might want to have with your advisor. Together, you can brainstorm possible solutions and evaluate alternative plans for resolution.
• Touching base with your director of graduate studies (DGS) – if this person is not also your advisor – to talk to about policies and possible solutions to the conflict.
• Soliciting peer advice. Discuss strategies for managing and resolving conflict with your advisor. “Do you have any suggestions for me?” “Have you ever had an issue like this…?” can be effective questions.
• Identifying a new advisor if the conflict can not be resolved. Your DGS can help with this, and the Graduate School (as above) can help as well.

The National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity offers a webinar, “ How to Engage in Healthy Conflict “, which students can view after activating a free NCFDD membership through Cornell.

Changing Advisors

On occasion, students find that they need or want to change their advisor. An advisor can resign as the student’s special committee chair/faculty advisor. The  Code  of Legislation of the Graduate Faculty describes the rights and responsibilities of students and faculty in each of these situations.

Typical reasons to seek a new advisor include:

• Research interests that veer from the faculty’s expertise or ability to fund a certain project
• Your advisor retires or resigns from the university or takes an extended leave of absence for personal or professional reasons
• Differences in goals, values, or an approach to work or communication style that can’t be resolved
• Serious issues, involving suspected inappropriate behavior, questionable research conduct, or alleged bias, discrimination, or harassment

If you are considering changing advisors:

• Talk to a member of your committee, your director of graduate studies (DGS), or someone in the Graduate School about the proposed change. Some issues, such as funding, require timely attention.
• Identify other faculty members who could serve as your advisor, then meet with one or more of them. The goal is to decide together if you are a good fit with their program. Tips: Discuss or rehearse this conversation with a trusted person, especially if there were issues with your last advisor. Be transparent about these issues and address them going forward with a new advisor. Often prospective advisors are more willing to take on a new graduate student who conveys genuine enthusiasm for their area of study rather than a student who seems to be looking for a way out of a current advising relationship that has gone sour.
• Consider how and when to inform your advisor if you plan to change advisors. Be professional and respectful. Thank your advisor for past support and guidance. Don’t damage, or further damage, the relationship.
• Your DGS, if appropriate
• Office of the University Ombudsman
• Graduate School’s associate dean for graduate student life ( [email protected] )
• Graduate School’s associate dean for academics ( [email protected] )

Forms: 

• Use Student Center if you are changing your advisor before your A exam (for Ph.D. students).
• Use the Post A Committee Change Petition form for changes after the A exam. More information is available on the Graduate School’s Policy pages .

Challenges and Potential Solutions

All good relationships take work. To navigate an advising relationship successfully over time, you should familiarize yourself with some common challenges and possible actions to take.

Challenge: Mismatch in communication needs or style

One example of a communication challenge in an advising relationship is when you want input along the way during a writing project, but you have an advisor who prefers to wait to comment on a complete written draft.

Some possible steps to address this might be to talk to peers about they have handled this in their relationship with their advisor or to explain to your advisor how his or her input at this earlier stage will help speed you along toward having a complete draft for review. It’s important in communicating with your advisor to show that you understand what alternative they are proposing and why (e.g., “I understand that …”).

Challenge: Advisor unavailable or away

Your advisor might be away from campus for a semester or more to conduct research or take a sabbatical leave. Or when a grant proposal deadline or report is looming, your advisor might be less available. Maybe you’ve emailed your advisor several times with no response.

Planning and stating in advance what you need, such as feedback on a manuscript draft or signatures on a fellowship application, can help your advisor anticipate when you will have time-sensitive requests. Making plans in advance to communicate by email or video conference when either of you will be away from campus for a longer period of time is another useful strategy. Your director of graduate studies (DGS) and other faculty who serve as special committee members can also provide advice when your advisor is unavailable.

Challenge: Misaligned expectations

You are ready to submit a manuscript for publication. Your advisor says it needs much more work. Or you begin your job search, applying to liberal arts colleges with very high reputations, or schools in your preferred geographic location, but your advisor insists that you should apply for positions at top research universities.

Discussing your needs and expectations early, and often, in the advising relationship is essential. Get comfortable, and skilled, advocating for yourself with your advisor. Use the annual  Student Progress Review  as an opportunity to communicate your professional interests and goals with your advisor. Use multiple mentors beyond your advisor to get advice and expertise on topics where you need a different perspective or support.

Sometimes challenges can become opportunities for you to develop and refine new skills in communication, negotiation, self-advocacy, and management of conflict, time, and resources. For example, although you might feel abandoned if your advisor is unavailable for a time, even this potentially negative experience could become an opportunity to learn how to advocate for yourself and communicate about your needs and perceived difficulties in the relationship.

Advising Resources

Graduate School deans and directors  are available to answer academic and non-academic questions and provide referrals to useful resources.

Counseling and Psychological Services  (CAPS) staff offer confidential, professional support for students seeking help with stress, anxiety, depression, grief, adjustment challenges, relationship difficulties, questions about identity, and managing existing mental health conditions.

Let’s Talk Drop-in Consultations  are informal, confidential walk-in consultations at various locations around campus.

External Resources

University of Michigan Rackham, How to Get the Mentoring You Want  

Laura Gail Lunsford & Vicki L. Baker, 2016, Great Mentoring in Graduate School: A Quick Start Guide for Protégés

Michigan State University, Guidelines for Graduate Student Advising and Mentoring Relationships  

Michigan State University, Graduate Student Career and Professional Development  

Template for Meeting Notes

Adapted and expanded from Maria Gardiner, Flinders University © Flinders University 2007; used with permission and published in  The Productive Graduate Student Writer  (Allen, 2019). Used here with permission of the author and publisher.  

Use this template for making notes to help you plan for a productive meeting with your advisor, keep track of plans made, and clearly identify next steps that you’ll need to take to follow up on what you discussed.

Mentoring Resources

Graduate school programs focused on mentoring, building mentoring skills for an academic career.

Develop and enhance effective communication and mentorship skills that are broadly transferrable to all careers. Offered by Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate and Professional Students International (GPSI) Peer Mentoring Program

Share lessons learned as a new international student at Cornell as a peer mentor with new international student peer mentees. Offered by the GPSI in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

Graduate Students Mentoring Undergraduates (GSMU)

Share knowledge with and provide support to undergraduate students interested in pursuing further education. Offered in collaboration with the Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives (OADI).

Multicultural Academic Council (MAC) Peer Mentoring Program

Develop strategies to excel academically and personally at Cornell and beyond as a peer mentee or share strategies as a peer mentor. Offered by MAC in collaboration with the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement.

NextGen Professors Program

Learn from faculty in Power Mentoring Sessions and prepare for careers across institutional types. Offered by the Graduate School Office of Inclusion and Student Engagement and Future Faculty and Academic Careers.

Graduate School Programs with a Mentoring Component

Graduate school primer: navigating academia workshop series.

Program for new students on navigating graduate school with sessions on mentoring.

Perspectives: The Complete Graduate Student

Program for continuing students on common issues with some sessions on mentoring.

GPWomeN-PCCW Speaker Series

Series for all students featuring talks by Cornell alumnae with an occasional mentoring focus.

Future Professors Institute

One-day event featuring workshops and guest speakers with occasional mentoring focus.

Intergroup Dialogue Project (IDP)

Peer-led courses blending theory and experiential learning to facilitate meaningful communication with occasional mentoring focus.

Building Allyship Series

Series for the campus community featuring panels designed for productive dialogue with occasional mentoring focus.

Institutional Memberships

Center for the integration of research, teaching, and learning (cirtl) network.

Access to resources on teaching and research mentoring.

Access to career development and mentoring resources.

New York Academy of Sciences (NYAS)

Access to resources, including webinars and articles on mentoring.

Mentoring Programs Across Campus

Give and receive advice as part of a peer mentoring program for all College of Engineering students. Offered by the College of Engineering Office of Inclusive Excellence.

Mi Comunidad/My Community

Peer mentoring program run by graduate and professional students affiliated with the Latin@ Graduate Student Coalition (LGSC) and supported by the Latina/o Studies Program (LSP) and Latina/o/x Student Success Office (LSSO) at Cornell University.

Additional Resources:

• Mentoring and Leadership Tips from Graduate School Programs
• Cornell University Office of Faculty Development and Diversity – Resources for Mentors and Mentees
• Careers Beyond Academia LibGuide
• National Research Mentoring Network

Graduate School Articles on Mentoring:

• Alumna Addresses Importance of Mentoring
• Becoming Better Mentors Through Workshop Series
• August Offers Mentoring Advice
• ‘A Better Chance of Providing Access’: Future Professors Institute Fosters Inclusivity

Virtual Training and External Resources

• How to Get the Mentoring You Want: A Guide for Graduate Students – University of Michigan, Rackham Graduate School
• The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM – National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine
• Mentor Training: Online Learning Modules – University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute
• Mentor Curricula and Training: Entering Mentoring – Center for the Improvement of Mentored Experiences in Research

For other resources, view the Advising Guide for Research Students.

If there is anything not included on this list that we should consider, please send the information and a link to [email protected] .

Roles and responsibilities of supervisors

Introduction.

Effective graduate student supervision requires complex interactions between graduate students and their supervisors. The role of a supervisor is threefold: to advise graduate students, monitor their academic progress, and act as a mentor. Supervisors not only provide guidance, instruction and encouragement in the research activities of their students, but also take part in the evaluation and examination of their students’ progress, performance and navigation through the requirements of their academic program with the goal to ensure that their students are successful.

Supervisors are responsible for fostering the intellectual and scholarly development of their students. They also play an important role in providing advice about professional development and both academic and non-academic career opportunities, as they are able, and based upon the student’s career interests. 

While these expectations apply to all graduate students, supervising PhD students reflects a longer-term, more substantive commitment.  The privilege to supervise PhD students requires that the supervisor hold  Approved Doctoral Dissertation Supervisor (ADDS)  status. The intent of ADDS policy is to ensure that faculty have the appropriate knowledge to facilitate excellence in PhD supervision.

Knowledge of regulations, policies and procedures

Effective graduate student supervision requires a knowledge and understanding of the University’s requirements and expectations.  To this end, supervisors should:

2.1    Be knowledgeable and remain updated on department, Faculty and University regulations, policies and procedures, and have these protocols guide the supervisors’ decision-making and behaviour as they interact with graduate students. Supervisors are encouraged to take the necessary steps to be well-informed with those Policies identified in  section 1.2 .

2.2    Be familiar with the support services available to students and faculty at the University including those articulated in  section 1.2 . This information is normally available through department graduate co-ordinators, Faculty Graduate Studies Offices, Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA), the Graduate Student Association (GSA) or the University Secretariat.

2.3   Be informed about University of Waterloo policies and procedures that  inform academic integrity  (Office of Research).

2.4    Be aware of the University of Waterloo and Tri-Agency policies and procedures associated with the conduct of research.   Where appropriate, supervisors should be prepared to provide guidance to students on:

• The responsible conduct of research, with particular emphasis on the Tri-Agency Framework as defined in the  Faculty Association of University of Waterloo (FAUW) /University of Waterloo memorandum of Agreement (Section 14).
• The  ethical conduct of research  (Office of Research) involving animals, animal or human tissues, and human participants

2.5    Have knowledge of the  policies and procedures that govern international travel and security  that can be found at Waterloo International.

Advice on program of study, research and professional development

As noted above, supervisors are expected to serve as mentors to their graduate students.  To this end, supervisors should be prepared to provide well-informed advice on academics and professional development.  More specifically, supervisors should be prepared to advise students on:

2.6    An academic program that is challenging, at the appropriate level for the degree being sought, and that can be accomplished within commonly understood and desirable time and resource expectations of the student and the supervisor.

2.7    The choice of courses and seminars needed to fulfil the degree requirements.

2.8    The development and construct of a research topic and proposal.

2.9    The development of a communication plan with the supervisory/advisory committee as to how the student’s progress will be assessed (including during thesis writing and completion), and the role of advisory committee members in the assessment.

2.10    The availability of internships, practica, co-op or other experiential learning opportunities as part of the program.

2.11    The availability of professional development resources for Waterloo graduate students to help advance the students’ career objectives.

Meetings/consultation 

The establishment and communication of common expectations are critical elements to positive experiences for both graduate students and their supervisors.  Achieving these outcomes can be facilitated by regular meetings and/or consultation between students, their supervisors, and where appropriate advisory committees. Especially important is timely feedback on students’ written submissions. 

The University encourages supervisors to:

2.12    Ensure, especially important in the case of doctoral students, that the student has:

• An advisory committee as required.
• A program of study consistent with department and Faculty requirements that has been approved by the advisory committee as required.
• A research plan that is appropriate in breadth, depth and time to completion (see  Milestones in master's and doctoral programs ).

2.13    Arrange for regular (as agreed by the student and supervisor) meetings (which may involve the advisory committee) with students for consultation to ensure steady progress. The frequency of such meetings will depend on the discipline/field of study, type of program, and the student’s progress. At least two, preferably more, meetings should be arranged in each academic term. Supervisors should also be reasonably accessible for meetings requested by their students. The approach to these student meetings should be individualized to reflect the needs of the student. For example, some students may need more support while other may need less.

2.14    Communicate their evaluation of student progress to the department once a year or more often if required. The report should clearly indicate the status of the student’s progress (i.e., satisfactory or unsatisfactory).  In the latter case, the report must include a clearly articulated set of conditions that if satisfied will restore the student’s status to satisfactory. Where the supervisor feels that the student will have serious difficulties finishing the program, the supervisor, in consultation with the advisory committee as appropriate, will inform in writing, both the student and the graduate officer of the nature of the problem(s), suggested remedies and may recommend withdrawal from the program.  More information on  assessing students’ progress  can be found in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar.

2.15    Thoroughly review and provide constructive feedback on all written materials relevant to the thesis or research paper submitted by their students. The supervisor and the student are encouraged to establish in writing expectations on what constitutes timely feedback; a timeframe of two to three weeks depending on the complexity of the document is commonly applied. However, this can vary depending on various circumstances such as travel or vacation.  These circumstances should be discussed between the supervisor and student.

2.16    Have knowledge of the  guidelines for evaluating students’ progress in a research program  (Graduate Studies Academic Calendar).

2.17   Inform students about the  broad spectrum of resources available  (Writing and Communication Centre) to facilitate development of oral communication and writing skills.

2.18    Be active and supportive in promoting students’ well-being.  This may include:

• Inquiring about a student’s well-being, as appropriate.
• Directing students to  appropriate support services , including  Mental Health and Wellness resources  (Campus Wellness).
• Displaying empathy towards the student.

2.19    Complete as appropriate the University requirements for  Sexual violence awareness, referral and support training  (Human Rights, Equity and Inclusion Office) to understand how to respond to disclosures of sexual violence and refer students to the appropriate supports.

The University recognizes that supervisors will be away from the University for extended periods of time (e.g., sabbatical, satellite campus, visiting professorship).  Being physically away from the University does not preclude a supervisor from remaining engaged with their graduate students.  In cases where the supervisor will not be available either in person or via electronic communications, the supervisor should:

2.20    Inform students, prospective students and the department of any anticipated extended period where communication will not be occurring. In cases when the absence is for a period of two months or more, supervisors should arrange for suitable communication methods. Interim supervision also must be arranged, for example, using members of advisory committees. Supervisors must inform the student’s department (chair/graduate officer) of the arrangements made for the period of absence, including supervision of laboratory or field work where graduate students continue to work during the absence.

2.21    Ensure students know that in situations where a supervisor works away from campus for two months or more and where their students can accompany the supervisor, the decision to remain on campus or to follow the supervisor rests entirely with the student. Students shall face no pressure (explicit or implicit) or consequences when making this choice and are not required to provide any reason.

As with the departmental representatives, supervisors have responsibility to advance safety.  More specifically, supervisors should:

2.22    Ensure a safe working environment both on and off campus (working alone, field work) by assessing hazards and implementing appropriate controls. This must be in accordance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act,  Policy 34  (Secretariat) and department and Faculty regulations.  All supervisors must complete mandatory  health and safety supervisor awareness training  (Safety Office) and must ensure that graduate students complete both mandatory and work-specific safety training.  More information can be found on the  Safety Office  website.

2.23    Ensure that students obtain additional training when new safety risks arise and ensure training is kept up to date.

Inherent to graduate education are the dissemination of knowledge and the participation in scholarly activities away from the University campus.  Travel (domestic and international) can include fieldwork, conferences, course work and other work related to the thesis. Supervisors are encouraged to support students’ travel to accomplish these important objectives.  Supervisors should:

2.24    Follow or encourage students to follow  Policy 31  (Secretariat) that governs University-sanctioned travel.

2.25    Categorize and report risk associated with travel.  Low risk  (Safety Office) are activities for which it is expected that participants will encounter hazards that are no greater than what they encounter in their everyday lives. Examples of  significant risk  (e.g. industrial sites, remote regions etc.) are noted on the  Safety Office website .  Travel or field work that involves significant risk must be documented using the  Fieldwork Risk Management Form  from the  Safety Office .  For low risk activities off campus, supervisors should:

• Provide advice on preparation for pre-departure orientation and planning for any travel and including associated risk, as they are able;

2.26    Document the student(s) location and duration of travel, including personal and emergency contact information. Review the material provided by  Waterloo International  to understand how to best mitigate risk and ensure safety for international travel.

2.27    Encourage students to register using the  Pre-departure Travel Form  at  Waterloo International .

2.28    Consult the  Government of Canada Travel Advice and Advisories web page  for the international destination and discuss the mitigation of risk with the students to the destination.

Financial assistance

Supervisors regularly provide financial support for their graduate students.  Both the supervisor and the student benefit when a clear understanding exists of the value of funding, and the academic outcomes that should occur from the supported activities.  Specifically, supervisors should:

2.29    Be informed about the spectrum of funding opportunities available through the department, Faculty and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs (GSPA) for students in  financial need  and to communicate these sources to student.

2.30   Communicate clearly and in writing to their students the terms (e.g., amounts, length of time, conditions) of the financial commitment being made when financial assistance is to be provided from research grants or contracts under the supervisor’s direction.

2.31    Support students’ understanding of their funding, including a consideration of student expenses (primarily tuition and housing) and taxation, if appropriate.  

Intellectual property 

Increasingly, students and supervisors enter into their academic relationships with previously established intellectual property (IP).  Moreover, students and supervisors may have an expectation that their collective work may produce new IP.  Best practices include the articulation of students’ and supervisors’ understanding of IP relationships at regular intervals throughout the students’ academic program.  More specifically, supervisors should: 

2.32    Discuss issues related to intellectual property such as patents, software, copyright, and income from sales and royalties, and inform students of University policies about intellectual property and the conduct of research. It should be recognized that, in accordance with  Policy 73  (Secretariat), intellectual property normally is owned by the creators. However, the University retains a royalty-free right to use, for educational and research purposes, any intellectual property created by faculty, staff and students. Ideally, supervisors and students should enter into a written agreement that expresses IP owned by either party prior to beginning the research relationship and the default way in which IP created by the researchers’ joint activities will be owned.  A common example is an assumption in the absence of an explicit agreement of joint IP ownership, with each researcher owning an equal share.

2.33    Ensure that students are aware of implications and/or obligations regarding intellectual property of research conducted under contract. If appropriate, discuss with their students and any research partners the protection of intellectual property by patent or copyright. Any significant intellectual contribution by a student must be recognized in the form of co-authorship. Supervisors must convey to students, in advance of publication, whether they intend to recognize the student as co-author for work under contract.

Publications 

Academic outputs – in various forms – document and demonstrate ownership of creative research and other scholarly activities.  These outputs are important for advancing knowledge and catalyzing additional scholarly activity in these areas and should be encouraged.  When supervisors and graduate students work collectively on these academic works, it is important for both that their relative contributions are represented appropriately.  To achieve these goals, supervisors should:

2.34    Discuss with their students, at an early stage of their program, authorship practices within the discipline and University policies about publications ( Policy 73  on the Secretariat website). 

2.35    Discuss and reach agreement with students, well in advance of publication and ideally at the outset of collaboration, the way in which authorship will be shared, if appropriate, between the supervisor, the student and other contributors for work conducted under contract.

2.36    Encourage the dissemination of students’ research results by publication in scholarly and research journals, presentation at conferences (domestic or international) and seminars;

2.37    Motivate the dissemination of research through non-traditional or non-academic avenues (e.g. Open Access resources, public presentations, and popular media).

Withdrawal of supervisory duties 

In rare cases supervisors may determine that they are not prepared or able to continue in a supervisory capacity.  When this occurs, the supervisor is required to:

2.38    Follow the guidelines in the Graduate Studies Academic Calendar regarding  University Responsibilities Regarding Supervisory Relationships  that outlines the steps for dissolution of the supervisory relationship.

Accommodation 

The University is eager to establish conditions that maximize graduate students’ likelihood of success.  To this end, supervisors:

2.39    Have a duty to engage in accommodations processes with  AccessAbility Services , as requested, and to provide appropriate accommodation to the point of undue hardship.

2.40    Remain informed of their roles and responsibilities with respect to accommodations.

Guide for Graduate Research and Supervision

• Roles and responsibilities of departments, graduate officers and graduate co-ordinators
• Roles and responsibilities of graduate students
• Roles and responsibilities of advisory committees

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Does a PhD student need a co-supervisor?

I am a few months into my PhD and my supervisor and co-supervisor are close friends.

Unfortunately, I find that my co-supervisor is not useful – he doesn’t provide any help or input into my project. Additionally, he has given me a hard time on more than one occasion, e.g. making a derogatory comment about the source of my PhD funding, not including me in discussions with his other PhD candidates (although I was physically present), and asking me to buy items for another PhD candidate using my budget.

I would like to stop being supervised by my co-supervisor, but I have not yet built a relationship with another academic that I could ask to take the role.

Do I need a co-supervisor? Can anyone recommend ways I deal with this situation?

• 24 Does your department require PhD students to have co-supervisors? If so, you have your answer. If not, you have your answer. –  JeffE Commented Apr 30, 2014 at 12:04
• First time I've ever heard of the concept of a co-supervisor. –  user1482 Commented May 1, 2014 at 15:54
• 1 Since your supervisor and co-supervisor are close friends, if you decide to go without a co-supervisor, be careful how you raise the issue with your supervisor. Rather than criticising the co-supervisor outright, it may be better to say something like "we just don't click. Our personalities are too different." –  mhwombat Commented May 1, 2014 at 17:56

4 Answers 4

The direct answer is not a PhD students does not need a co-advisor. The problem here is to think about the role of co-advisors. I am sure the view on this varies so my view is coloured by situations with which I am familiar, which is the US and Sweden. Co-advisors may be involved because they have specific expertise that may be relevant to part of the work, for example specific investigations, lab work ec. Co-advisors may also be there to provide overall scientific expertise and provide feedback on written articles or the final thesis or both. Hence a co-advisor may not be very active when you start your PhD. At the same time by signing up as a co-advisor, I would expect the co-advisor to be open for discussion during your time as a student but it may fall on you to initiate such contacts when you need it. The main advisor is, after all, the one responsible for the direction of your work within your thesis topic.

So while one does not need a co-advisor, there are many instances where such support is necessary or at least very useful.

Normally, a co-supervisor is not needed. However, there are some circumstances where it can be extremely useful. One such instance (with which I have some experience) is related to supervising students between departments. At some institutes, candidates admitted to department X can work with a primary advisor in department Y (and vice versa) if they have a co-advisor in department X.

Beyond that, though, there aren't many places I know where a co-supervisor is required. If you have concerns with how your co-advisor is treating you, the first thing to do is to speak to both of your advisors. If the behavior continues, then you may also want to consider talking to the faculty member in charge of graduate affairs within your department.

• I'm studying in The Netherlands where cases of scientific fraud among psychology professors have been surfacing lately, and one of the conclusions was that students should be co-supervised as a safety measure. Another potential reason is to have a clear idea what will happen with the student if the main supervisor would at some point become unavailable for supervision. This is the case in the institute where I am, and so far the co-supervision on my project is on paper only, and will remain that way. –  Ana Commented May 2, 2014 at 6:43

A co-supervisor must be useful. It is not fair to take a role of "useless supervisor" who can later be added as a co-author with relatively little input to the published works.

This of course depends somewhat on the status of the co-supervisor. Some professors already do not spend much time on experimental research, focusing on lectures or department-level supervision instead. In such case the department may have several intermediate supervisors, each having small own research group. In such case, without co-supervisor, you stay alone and may not even be able to get equipment and reagents you need for work.

However situation when some freshly baked post-doc starts "teaching" a good PhD student without use is also common. The goals may be to get into co-authors or even to take over the promising research topic. Sometimes such co-supervisor may be even obviously less competent than his student, so why to piggy-back him?

In case a co-supervisor is not useful, talk to professor and ask to remove co-supervisor out of your head. Simply say you do not think you benefit from additional supervision, explaining that the problems you are supposed to solve with ones help you can solve no worse or maybe even better yourself. Some cases / examples would be good.

Generally, the co-supervisor is somebody to guide you when your primary supervisor is not available. A good co-supervisor can boost your research power as he/she can share alternative viewpoint about research information. This supposes to encourage your research/work to become more rounded and more suitable for larger group of people.

Nevertheless, my suggestion is based on my experience in Australian system that heavily relies on the guidance of the supervisors. To deal with this situation, I suggest you seek for the person with the higher power as he/she can make a change or comments on your co-supervisor. One of the options is the primary supervisor usually holds more power than the co-supervisor. Also, he may know who is more proper than that guy, if they aren't friends. A more safe option is to consult with the head of the postgraduate office who has more power as the person has to take care of everyone in the school. So, he/ she should be able to regulate the inappropriate conduct or move him from your supervision panel.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged phd advisor ..

• Featured on Meta
• Bringing clarity to status tag usage on meta sites
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process

Hot Network Questions

• How to load a function from a Vim9 script and call it?
• What's "the archetypal book" called?
• Fusion: Where are with respect to "engineering break even"
• How to run only selected lines of a shell script?
• Combination lock on a triangular rotating table
• Getting error with passthroughservice while upgrading from sitecore 9 to 10.2
• Titus 1:2 and the Greek word αἰωνίων (aiōniōn)
• In roulette, is the frequency of getting long sequences of reds lower than that of shorter sequences?
• quantulum abest, quo minus .
• What other marketable uses are there for Starship if Mars colonization falls through?
• Is it a date format of YYMMDD, MMDDYY, and/or DDMMYY?
• Is the set of all non-computable numbers closed under addition?
• Was the term " these little ones" used as a code word for believers?
• Using rule-based symbology for overlapping layers in QGIS
• What is the difference between passing NULL vs. nullptr to a template parameter?
• In what instances are 3-D charts appropriate?
• Applying for different jobs finding out it is for the same project between different companies
• Do all instances of a given string get replaced under a rewrite rule?
• How would humans actually colonize Mars?
• Short story about humanoid creatures living on ice, which can swim under the ice and eat the moss/plants that grow on the underside of the ice
• In Lord Rosse's 1845 drawing of M51, was the galaxy depicted in white or black?
• Why is a USB memory stick getting hotter when connected to USB-3 (compared to USB-2)?
• Short story - disease that causes deformities and telepathy. Bar joke
• Is there an error in Lurie, HTT, Proposition 6.1.2.6.?

Guide, Co-guide, Supervisors as Author in Publication on Student Thesis

• September 2021
• Journal of Nepal Health Research Council 19(2):434-436
• 19(2):434-436

• chitwan med coll (current). patan hosp, pahs (earlier)

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• CAN MED ASSOC J

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

The importance of the co-investigator (part 1)

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share on Linkedin
• Share via email

Why co-investigators are crucial and how to be an effective one

This is the first in a two-part series about the role and importance of co-investigators on grant applications. This first article is written for individual researchers considering co-investigator roles, and the second is for institutions, which often overlook or undercount the contribution of co-Is.

What  is  a co-investigator, or co-I? Someone who’s not the principal investigator (PI)—not the project leader in other words, but still someone who has a significant role in the intellectual leadership of the project. They are not a research associate, working primarily to the direction of one of the investigators. They are also not a collaborator, who provides specific expertise important for the successful delivery of one narrow aspect of the project.

The distinctions between these roles are not fixed, and different funders draw them differently. Some also recognise a hybrid role of researcher-co-I. Some want to minimise the number of co-applicants to only a core team and relegate others to collaborator roles. Others reserve ‘collaborator’ roles for industry, civil society, or other impact partners.

As we move to larger and more ambitious projects requiring multidisciplinary teams, the co-I role is going to become ever more important. It’s much underrated, and I’ll say more about that in part two of this series.

Models of project leadership

The picture is further confused because there’s no one model of academic leadership for research projects. There are  auteur PIs  where the PI is the undisputed star of the show, with the co-Is as supporting actors playing very specific roles. There are  first-among-equals PIs  who work on partnership or team projects where responsibility is shared fairly evenly, where it’s a truly collaborative effort and the PI is only listed as such because someone needs to be.  PI-mus inter pares , if you will.

There’s the  executive PI  who provides leadership and direction and coordination, but whose actual time commitment is relatively limited. Contrast this with the  chief-operating PI —not always the most experienced or eminent of the investigators, but the one who’s providing the intellectual leadership (supported by colleagues) and putting in the hard yards to make it happen.

Grant application forms should provide space to explain the team structure and the various roles and responsibilities. Avoid the temptation just to list areas of academic expertise and work package responsibility—you should also explain how leadership responsibility is structured and the roles of each team member.

There is another model, but it’s one to be avoided: the  boilerplate PI . The project isn’t really their idea, but they’re the highest profile team member, so their name gets bolted on top. Unless they’re really an executive PI—which can work—don’t do this. It rarely convinces reviewers. If there are concerns about the level of experience of the real PI, it’s better to think about support structures involving more experienced co-Is and the mentoring pr professional development that could be put in place. Or apply for a smaller grant.

A similar setup to avoid is the ‘salami project’, where an impressive cast of co-investigators has been assembled but their time allocations are sliced so thinly that it’s hard to see how any actual work will get done. Two hours every second Tuesday isn’t going to be enough. Reviewers are right to be suspicious when they see this.

The correct model of project leadership will depend on the nature of the project and the relative contributions of each of the investigators. Who should be PI, and what model of academic leadership the project will follow should emerge organically from the work package, team and the funder’s requirements. The project should define the structure, not the other way around.

Cooperative co-investigators

In my standard presentation on applying for research funding, I tell everyone that the best and most straightforward way to get research funding is to be co-I on someone else’s project. And that’s true. The PI will likely have to do the bulk of the writing, but the co-Is will share in the success. As a career move, positioning yourself as an attractive collaborator—who is credible and has a certain collegiate attitude—is an excellent move.

However, there’s no excuse for freeriding on the PI’s blood, sweat, and tears. Being named as a co-I on a grant application ought to be seen as an honour, but over the years I’ve witnessed some poor behaviour, sometimes so poor that it’s collapsed the whole project. As a result I’ve come up with seven golden rules for a successful co-I.

1. Do or do not… there is no ‘try’ . If you’re approached to be co-I, you have a decision to make. You’re either in, or you’re out. The bid doesn’t have to be your  top  priority, but you must be able to make  a  priority. If you can’t, you shouldn’t accept the invitation.

2. Accept and respect the PI’s leadership.  By agreeing that a colleague should be PI, you are accepting their leadership. That doesn’t mean that what they say must always go, but if you’re not prepared to (broadly) follow their lead, you shouldn’t accept co-I status. If there’s a deadline, the chances are that the PI needs something of a free hand to make decisions quickly to get the proposal in on time.

3. Complete all admin on time.  You’ll need to provide a CV to a specified format and/or enter similar information into an online form. Failing to complete it can prevent proposals from being submitted. The PI is juggling every other aspect of the proposal. 

It’s stressful, and the greatest stressors are always the things that are outside the PI’s direct control… such as your parts of the application. If you do your bit early, quickly, and accurately, that’s one less thing for her to worry about. Would you rather she spent her time polishing the application, or chasing you for your CV for the twelfth time?

4. Inform your costings team straight away and introduce them to the PI and the PI’s costing team . When administrator speaks unto administrator, everything goes smoother. If you’re the PI, this should be your top priority once you’ve finalised the team: introduce your co-Is to your research development manager, and they can approach her, not you, with administrative and technical queries.

5. Provide quality content at the right scale for the proposal.  You’ll be asked to draft or amend sections of the proposal related to your expertise. You should do so in the context of the available space. Don’t send four pages on the details of your cutting-edge methods if there’s only six pages for the whole case for support. 

Yes, it’s easier to edit down than to edit up, but it’s lazy and selfish to expect the PI to do it when the person in the best position to do that editing is you.

6. If asked, be a critical friend for your colleagues . Likely the PI will ask you to read and comment on multiple drafts of the application. Unless you’ve been specifically directed otherwise, you should read and comment on the whole draft, not just on ‘your bits’. If there are parts of the application that you don’t understand or that aren’t convincing or are inconsistent, you should (gently) point this out. 

This article  on giving better feedback on grant applications might help. There’s a delicate balance to be struck between being supportive beyond your immediate role and trying to interfere with everything. What’s less helpful is asking for more on your sections/specialism when there really isn’t the space. Your PI should be giving you clear instructions about what feedback is required and by when.

7. Start as you mean to go on.  The relationships, norms and working practices established or reinforced at grant application stage set the tone for the whole project. If you’ve created good first impressions and positive working relationships at application stage, there’s every chance this will continue into the project proper. If funded, you’re stuck with these people for the duration.

Adam Golberg is research development manager (charities) at the University of Nottingham. He tweets  @Cash4Questions   and blogs at  socialscienceresearchfunding.co.uk .

University of South Florida

Research and Scholarship

College of Arts and Sciences

Main Navigation

Research and scholarship faqs, differences between a pd/pi, multiple pi, a co-pi, & a co-investigator, usf information on the roles and responsibilities of pis and co-pis.

Information on the roles and responsibilities of PIs and Co-PIs can be found in the USF Roles and Responsibilities policy . See also USF’s Guidelines to Determine PI Eligibility .

As described in the policies, all USF tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track faculty, researchers and scholars may serve as a Principal Investigator (PI) on a proposal for external funding.

While post-doctoral scholars and adjunct faculty may serve as Co-principal Investigators (Co-PI) on sponsored projects, they may not serve in the role of PI unless pre-approved by USF’s Sponsored Research in collaboration with the appropriate responsible officer (College and/or Campus Dean, Director, or Vice President). Pre-approval is required for each proposal.

A request for exception to the guidelines must be submitted in writing to the Director of Sponsored Research by the appropriate Department Chair, signed by the College and/Campus Dean (or designee), and accompanied by the appropriate biosketch (NIH or NSF format) no later than two weeks before the proposal deadline.

Note: USF currently has no eligibility requirements for Co-PIs, provided a PI-eligible PI is in place, and the Co-PI meets eligibility requirements imposed by the sponsor.

Definitions

Principal Investigator (PI) identifies the individual responsible for activities on a research project or activity, particularly those funded by a grant, a cooperative agreement, a training or public service project, a contract, or other sponsored mechanism. Responsibilities include the intellectual conduct of the project, fiscal accountability, administration, and compliance. It is possible that the PI may share these responsibilities with a multi-investigator team.

Project Director (PD) identifies an individual responsible for the conduct of a non-research sponsored project. Responsibilities are the same as the Principal Investigator.

Co-Principal Investigator (Co-PI) identifies a senior member of the key personnel team who shares administrative, fiscal, and scientific conduct with the PI on research projects. The Co-PI can be named in the proposal and on project documentation as a co-PI provided this role is accepted by the sponsor. Note: NIH, for example, allows designation of only a single PI and does not recognize Co-PI as a role. As such, the term “Co-Investigator” and “multiple PI” are not terms that are interchangeable with NIH grants (See definition of MPI).

Co-Investigator (Co-I) identifies a member of the project team who conducts the scientific portion of a research project. Co-Is can be named in the proposal provided the sponsor accepts the role.    

Multiple Principal Investigator (MPI) identifies two or more individuals who share responsibility for the conduct of the project. Investigators will use the multiple PI/PD designation when all PIs/PDs share the responsibility and authority and when the sponsor so indicates. Under the multiple principal investigators concept, the National Institute of Health (NIH)  refers to multiple investigators as “PI” while the National Science Foundation (NSF)  does not infer any distinction in scientific stature among multiple PIs, refers to multiple investigators as “Co-PIs”.  See NIH Multiple Principal Investigators for more sponsor specifics. For both sponsors, the first PI listed will serve as the contact PI and must be affiliated with the submitting institution.

Contact PI identifies the individuals who will be entered on the Proposal Summary Form as PI/PD. Projects with multiple principle investigators must designate a Contact PI who is responsible for communications among the project team, the sponsor, and USF.