Publications by proxy: Misuse of authorship in doctoral research

Authorship plays a central role in academic recognition, accountability, and career progression. In doctoral research authorship practices may be shaped by supervisory hierarchies and unequal power relations. While coercive and honorary authorship have been widely discussed, less attention has been paid to situations in which supervisory status itself is treated as justification for authorship.

This commentary proposes the framing of "publications by proxy" to describe the inappropriate claiming of authorship on doctoral students' outputs based primarily on supervisory position, institutional authority, or access to resources rather than substantive intellectual contribution. Such practices may include expectations of automatic authorship, coercive authorship negotiations, misrepresentation of contributions, and the appropriation of doctoral students' work in publications or media engagement. These dynamics are particularly concerning given the dependence of doctoral candidates on supervisors for progression, mentorship and future opportunities.

We examine how power asymmetries within doctoral education can create conditions in which authorship becomes a site of control rather than a transparent reflection of intellectual labour. Existing authorship frameworks and contribution statements may be insufficient safeguards when doctoral candidates feel unable to question or contest claims made by senior academics. We argue that supervision, mentorship, and institutional oversight do not, in themselves, justify authorship. Practical strategies are proposed to support authorship integrity, including early written agreements, clarification of data ownership and publication processes, and access to independent institutional advice when disputes arise.

Treating supervision as a proxy for authorship undermines research integrity, distorts scholarly contribution, and risks normalising exploitative practices within doctoral education. Greater attention to authorship ethics, transparency, and power relations is needed to protect doctoral candidates and preserve trust in academic knowledge production.