Cdtjkyj

I am working on a paper after finishing my Masters. I did all the lab research and writing of the manuscript. My professor was only involved to guide me throughout the research and read my writing and give his comments. Can I argue with him and tell him I am not letting the article to be published if he insists on being the first author?

Thanks!

It isn't a good career move to counter your advisor in things like this. You need him to sign your thesis (already done) and to write you a good letter of recommendation - maybe still to come. If you anger him, whether rightly or wrongly, it will be you that pays the price.

As I said in a comment, this kind of "authorship" is common, accepted, and perfectly natural in some fields, even if it is a bit stupid.

Having joint authorship with a professor can actually be a help to your career, even if he takes first authorship. Some people will just assume that he did all of the work (no matter the order of authorship), carrying you along. Others will just assume that you did all the work and he is first author by curtesy. This is something you can't control.

But a publication with your name on it anywhere is a plus for your career.

If you want to fight a system that you think is stupid, wait until you have some power and standing in academia to back you up. Otherwise you get squashed before you have a chance to fly.

Work with him and get a good letter.

I realize this isn't the answer you wanted to read. But think in the long term, not the short.

Can I argue with him and tell him I am not letting the article to be published if he insists on being the first author?

Other answers have already indicated this is potentially a somewhat dangerous move if you plan on continuing your academic work.

However, I believe that you can and perhaps you should. It would be especially useful if you could bring examples of similar cases - with the same advisor or in the same department or subfield - where the advisor was credited last.

On the other hand, you write that

My professor was only involved to guide me throughout the research and read my writing and give his comments.

"only"? If he was guiding you the whole time and giving you comments all the time, isn't it possible that the research progressed in a way that he envisioned? Perhaps you're misjudging the extent of his contribution. While the work you did seems arduous to you, that's partly because you're new; perhaps for a more experienced researcher, you just did the "grunt work". I'm not saying that this is necessarily the case, but don't go arguing with your advisor unless you can be certain this point of view cannot be defended.

Finally, another alternative I would suggest, on principle and irrespective of who did how much, is alphabetical order of naming. The practice of listing names by order of decreasing contribution is very problematic and IMHO should be countered in general. Author names should be listed alphabetically, and if the authors do not explain who did what then people can just ask; or better yet - not ask. Of course, the advisor might theoretically be even more averse to that than to being listed second; it depends.

Occasionally (and more than occasionally in private / Ivy League institutions), professors will have their names credited as the primary author of a paper that was produced by their graduate advisees. In my view it is unethical, but in the eyes of some academics, it's customary. Some professors view their advisees as underlings to further his or her brand recognition in whichever field he/she works in.

in my view, your advisor is in fact not the author, if it's true that you did the research and literally wrote the paper. Before confronting him about it or giving him an ultimatum, I would go to another professor in your department whom you trust, and have a confidential conversation about the appropriateness of your advisor's demands versus the general attitude of the department. Sometimes you'll find that "nearly everybody does that" and sometimes they'll say "that's unacceptable."

If you consult with other professors and you get the impression that you are in the right, you will have more clout in dealing with the issue if your advisor becomes obstinate and makes a big deal out of it. But beware, all of the professors in your department are probably friends, or even worse they could be extremely factionalized. In either case, you run the risk of this "private" conversation being circulated around the proverbial "teacher's lounge."

Unless you are in an insanely competitive field at a flagship research university, I don't think this is going to blow up in your face. But only you can make the judgement for yourself.

After conversing with a trusted faculty member, I recommend you next present your concerns to your advisor, and see if he is willing to be reasonable about this. If he still isn't, this is a situation where you might need to get the administration involved, but they largely bend to the whims of tenured faculty members who bring in the big bucks with their research.

There should be a discussion here on the benefits versus detractors of submitting to your professor and having your name published second on the paper...versus not having your research published at all. I am a somewhat stubborn person and refuse to let anyone take credit for my work. But this might not be the most expedient approach for a person who is trying to get his/her name on publications under any circumstance. You'll have to decide which one you are, and I hope some other folks chime in on this particular subtopic.

addendum: If you produced your research using a program or model developed by your advisor, or some kind of privileged archival/digital/etc. access through your advisor that you'd otherwise not be able to use, I can see his demand being slightly more legitimized, so consider that as well.

Can I argue with him...

Rather than taking a starting position where you want to get in an argument, a much better approach would be to try to have a mature conversation where you can each agree on what your contribution to the paper was, and what each of you feel is the appropriate criteria for first authorship. Ask your supervisor for his opinions on this matter, and be open-minded and respectful. If you have a different opinion, then let him know your contrary view, and let him know that you are feeling aggrieved.

It is not unreasonable for you to raise authorship concerns with your supervisor. This is a conversation that is a legitimate part of joint research work, so you don't need to repress this. However, like all professional matters, it should be raised in a respectful and professional way. Begin by assuming good faith on the part of your supervisor, and don't start off framing the matter as an "argument" you need to have. Try to figure out where you agree and where you disagree, and just be mindful to make sure you don't allow your frustrations to lead to escalation into an unproductive conversation.

Before raising this matter with your supervisor, it would be a good idea for you to read some material on authorship conventions so that you are able to put your case with some support for outside sources (e.g., see this report). However, you should expect to have a preliminary meeting where your only initial goal is to exchange views on the matter, and then allow each party to go away to consider the views of the other. An initial conversation on this topic might end in disagreement, but if you can support your own view with reputable outside sources, that is likely to be more persuasive than if you cannot.

These kinds of cases really shouldn't arise, since supervisors and students should always discuss authorship expectation before they begin a research project and papers. I think your supervisor probably made a mistake in not discussing this up-front with you before the work on the paper was done. Even if you are unable to resolve this particular disagreement, it would be a good idea to formulate clear expectations on future papers with your supervisor. Inquire into the requirements he would expect for you to be first author on a paper.

I did all the lab research and writing of the manuscript. My professor was only involved to guide me throughout the research and read my writing and give his comments. ...

If that is an accurate description of the contributions (who came up with the research idea?) then it does not sound to me like enough to warrant first authorship on the part of your supervisor. Conventions will vary from field to field, but in my understanding, the first author should generally be the person who did the most work on the paper. (When I have supervised students in research projects they have always been the lead author on the resulting papers, except in one case where I did the majority of the work on the paper and wrote the first draft.) Ethical guidelines on authorship, such as in the linked report, may give some guidance and references discussing authorship-order, so these are worth reviewing.

You underestimate the work your adviser did. He choose the topic, he figured out what to prepare (or get prepared) that you can have a topic which fits the requirements of a master thesis regarding amount of work and depth of knowledge.

Eventually you will do a PhD and supervise bachelor or master students yourself. Then you will learn home much work it is to advise a student well and to prepare a topic.

If the adviser is able to figure out a topic leading to a publication, that is superior and ennobles your work. As far as I know engineering, math, physics, computer sciences, and human sciences, most master theses are not worth to be published. These are rare exceptions!