ethics - Advisor's/University's rights in the PhD/MSc alumni's research projects and publications

After a series of discussions about the level of dependency of a research student on his advisor in this link and this link, a question comes to mind that when the person is graduated and leaves the university; even he is now working independently in a company or he is a faculty member of a university; as far as most of the researches he is going to do may be based on his PhD dissertation;

• 
  

  Until when should this person contact his supervisor about the researches he is doing?

  
  



• 
  

  Should he ethically acknowledge that his researches is roots of his PhD project under his advisor's supervision?

  
  


• 
  

  If, based on his dissertation, he works on a research project; should he talk about it to his supervisor and he should be aware on every single after-PhD project? Just because the base of the publication and research is the PhD dissertation which is done under his supervision?

  
  


• 
  

  To put in a nutshell, as a matter of academic ethics, what are exact rights of a supervisor in projects done based on his student's supervision (after graduation of the person)? What are the rights of the university from which the student is graduated?

  
  

Answer

(I think... as a mathematician...) such situations are very field-dependent, and context-dependent. If, on one hand, one's advisor is an eminent master in the field, and one has inherited/acquired/learned some amazing riffs from them, then it would be fair to acknowledge this, although co-authorship is essentially ridiculously not called-for. If, on another hand, one's thesis advisor has been no more than a funded drivers'-training instructor, then, no, do not acknowledge them every time you drive to work and do something worthwhile.

:)

And, yes, there are (at least) two things to be distinguished: formal/practical dependency, and genuine scientific dependency. Money and knowledge are often confused in academe, unfortunately. Yet, yes, money and staying alive by being able to buy groceries at the end of the work-day are real things.

An example resolution of the question: if one's advisor did no more than provide a stipend, and sign papers, then that should be appreciated, and acknowledged, but don't over-interpret it.

If, on the opposite hand, one's advisor has shaped one's outlook on the whole enterprise, this, too, should be admitted whenever relevant. But that does not entail co-authorship. And one should hope that one's advisor will not be in the state of needing to pump their stats... (Not good to have an advisor who's still in that state, in the first place.)

General guideline: be real.