Authorship
Learning Objectives
Describe the criteria that
should apply when determining: authorship, acknowledgements, the order of
authors, and the size of the publishable unit.
Given brief descriptions of
cases involving authorship. Decide
between better and worse action choices and justification for the sample
problems presented.
Code of Conduct (http://www.memphis.edu/facultyhandbook/2007FHB_Chapter5.htm#Academic%20Misconduct)
Academic Misconduct (http://www.memphis.edu/facultyhandbook/2007FHB_Chapter5.htm#Academic%20Misconduct)
The following websites are
relevant to the topic of authorship:
http://www.responsibility.research.umich.edu/casematerialsdir.html
- guide
http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/auth.html
- content
http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/research/bio.htm
- auth
http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/services_YankRennieArticle.shtml
Authorship is at the heart
of the scientific process. A foundation
of trust must lie behind all publications.
Authors receive credit for work done, and they also must take
responsibility for the work. Data must
be reported honestly. Authors must
accept intellectual as well as ethical responsibility for their
publications. The listing and order of
authors should reflect the proper credit for the work. Multiple authorship is not necessarily a
problem, but irresponsible authorship is.
The average number of authors on scientific papers is now seven. Multiple authorship can be a problem if no
one acts a guarantor for the paper. Someone
has to take responsibility. A simple
practice of having each author record what their contribution was in a footnote
can assist editors and readers to assign both credit and responsibility for
different parts of the work. A simple
rule can go a long way to solving authorship problems: If you did not do the work, do not put your
name on it.
The following are from
"Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study
approach; A handbook for instructors". Association of American Medical
Colleges, 1994. This material is
reproduced with permission (see http://www.aamc.org/copyright.htm).
Providing financial and or
technical support and access to facilities is not a basis for authorship. Authorship decisions and ordering should be
discussed and agreed upon in advance.
If contributions change, initial agreements may need to be
renegotiated. Status of individuals or
rank should not be a basis for authorship decisions. The principal investigator assumes overall responsibility for all
publications, regardless of authorship status, unless negotiated in
advance. All authors review the final
manuscript and give their approval to the corresponding author. Fragmented publications are to be
avoided. Additional information may be
provided to the editor as requested to enable full evaluation of the
manuscript. Examples are: access to
original data; designation of each author's contribution in a footnote; copies
of articles by authors similar to manuscript under consideration.
Teams should determine each
member's responsibilities, obligations, degree of participation and
contribution. Having these roles and
responsibilities spelled out in a written document is ideal and can prevent
problems in the future. In general, the
work climate should be characterized by openness and collegiality. There should be mutual accountability of
members to one another for carrying out the responsibilities they assume. Senior members should provide mentorship,
training and learning opportunities for junior colleagues and students.
Time and effort are not by
themselves grounds for authorship.
Authorship decisions should not be affected by employment status or
whether a person is paid for their work.
Having a written agreement between faculty and student regarding
authorship is one way to prevent disputes.
A sample agreement is appended to the end of this module. Dialogue is encouraged at all points to
resolve disagreements about authorship.
When disagreements cannot be resolved, the parties may seek mediation
and resolution through their department’s established procedures for resolving
grievances and academic disputes.
Authorship disputes regarding credit and order of authorship are not
matters of scientific misconduct (see module on Research Misconduct).
From "Teaching the
responsible conduct of research through a case study approach; A handbook for
instructors". Association of American Medical Colleges, 1994.
Cases/Questions: B2, B3, B4. http://www.aamc.org/publications/research.htm This material is reproduced with permission
(see http://www.aamc.org/copyright.htm)
Esther Brezinska is an
assistant professor at a medical school where she has been employed in a
tenure-track appointment since completing a productive postdoctoral research
fellowship five years ago. Two years
ago, she was awarded her first investigator-initiated grant from the National
Institutes of Health and is now anticipating preparation of a competitive
renewal application for submission next year.
Next year, she also will be evaluated for promotion to associate
professor and award of tenure.
Dr. Brezinska has developed
a successful technique for culturing prostatic epithelial cells. Her NIH grant was awarded on the basis of
that success and the promise that the technique holds for testing a variety of
growth promoting and inhibitory substances.
Her work has important implications for the diagnosis and treatment of
prostate cancer.
At this juncture, Dr.
Brezinska has tested two hormones and two growth factors with positive and
potentially exciting results.
Experiments utilizing five more substances are in various stages of
progress, and she has plans to test at least five additional agents. She believes that it is time to publish
these results beyond the abstracts and poster presentations that she has
regularly presented at meetings as the work progressed. Now she faces a dilemma.
The most prestigious journal
in her field requests authors "not to separate fragments of a study into
individual reports, but rather to strive for full development of a
topic." On the other hand, she
suspects that the medical school’s promotion committee emphasizes numbers of
publications over the quality of content when reviewing bibliographies of
candidates for tenure. She wonders if
the NIH study section that will review her renewal application will be
similarly disposed. It would be easy to
write up the results of the first four experiments as a single report, since
they are closely related, but it might be of strategic value to have four
separate references in her curriculum vitae.
Bob Powell, a postdoctoral
fellow in biochemistry, has just completed a manuscript detailing the results
from the first project in which he has taken a leading role. The focus of his project has been to discern
the ways in which humans metabolize sulfites, a class of chemicals commonly
used to preserve wines and dried fruits.
Although he had developed the rough outlines of the project on his own,
he owes much to individuals both inside and outside his lab. The assistance he received from others
includes the following:
A colleague at another
university, a toxicologist specializing in food additives, shared with Bob his
previous work on the in vivo activity of sulfites, information that allowed Bob
to choose the ideal animal model for the experiment--the Abyssinian field
mouse. A friend of his, who happened to
be a wildlife specialist, provided Bob with much advice on rearing and
maintaining a colony of Abyssinian field mice such that he would have a stable
pool of animal subjects. A highly
experienced technician in the lab gave Bob advice on modifying an assay he had
been using, which finally allowed him to measure successfully sulfite
metabolites in mouse urine. This
technician also assisted in writing up the methods section of the paper. The number of assays that Bob had to conduct
was quite sizable and more than he could manage on his own, given other demands
of the project. Thus, an undergraduate
college student collected most of the urine samples and conducted the assays
yielding the data. Finally, a senior
researcher in a neighboring lab who took an interest in Bob’s career offered to
review the initial drafts of Bob’s paper.
By the end of the writing process, this researcher had helped Bob
outline the paper, suggested a few additional experiments that strengthened the
paper’s conclusions, and made a number of editing changes in the penultimate
draft that enhanced the paper’s clarity.
Dr. Jonathan Perry, a tenured
professor, used his sabbatical to visit the laboratory of Dr. Brian Chandler, a
widely published and respected senior scientist. During his stay in Dr. Chandler's lab, Dr. Perry hoped to learn
certain techniques of molecular biology that he would employ in his own
research. To afford Dr. Perry this
opportunity, Dr. Chandler assigned him a leading role in a new project that the
lab was undertaking. After seven
months, laboratory work on the project was completed, and Dr. Perry returned to
his own institution to begin work on a paper to report the final results. Ultimately, many drafts of the paper were
faxed back and forth between laboratories until Dr. Perry received the
penultimate version from Dr. Chandler’s lab.
On this version, a new name, J. B. Martin, Ph.D., appeared among the
authors listed. Dr. Perry had never met
Dr. Martin, never worked with him on any technical aspect of the project, and
had never heard his name or ideas mentioned in the laboratory meetings in which
the project was planned or the results discussed.
Dr. Perry called Dr.
Chandler and questioned the addition of Dr. Martin as an author on the
manuscript. Dr. Chandler stated that,
due to prior collaborations, it was a longstanding policy to include Dr. Martin
on all publications coming out of Dr. Chandler’s laboratory. Dr. Martin’s laboratory had a reciprocal
agreement, he added. Dr. Perry stated
that he did not feel that Dr. Martin was a qualified author on this particular
paper since he had not made a significant contribution to the work being
published. Dr. Chandler replied that
Dr. Perry did not have the right to question the policy of a laboratory in
which he had worked as an invited guest.
Dr. Perry maintained his position that Dr. Martin did not belong as an
author on the paper and further stated that if Dr. Chandler insisted on
including Dr. Martin’s name, then, as first author, Dr. Perry would not allow
the paper to be submitted. Dr. Chandler
responded, "Well, you can withdraw your name, but the work was done here
in my laboratory and we plan to submit the paper for publication."
Resource
Articles
The following materials were
taken from University of Minnesota educational program on Responsible Conduct
of Research (http://www.research.umn.edu/ethics/modAuthorship.html)
and are used with permission of the University of Minnesota. The synopses of articles are copyright by
the University of Minnesota.
Angell, M. "Publish or Perish:
A Proposal." Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 104, No. 2 (February 1986),
pp. 261-262.
Concerned about the way in
which pressures to publish have created a diluted and unwieldy literature, the
executive editor of the New England Journal of Medicine proposes limiting the
number of papers considered for promotion or funding. This, she reasons, would curtail attempts to pad bibliographies
and leave the scientific enterprise with a leaner and more substantive literature.
Bailar, J. C., and F.
Mosteller. "Guidelines for Statistical Reporting in Articles for Medical
Journals." Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 108, No. 2 (February 1988),
pp. 266-273.
This article accompanies the
"Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical
Journals" (see scientific and professional society reports/guidelines
below). It is an amplification of the
statistical reporting guidelines and identifies 15 principles to follow in
conducting and reporting on statistical analyses of one’s work. This article is easy to follow and may prove
particularly useful for trainees who are not comfortable with the statistical
aspects of their work.
Broad, W. J. The publishing
game; getting more for less. Science 211:1137-1139, 1981.
Caelleigh, A. S.
"Credit and Responsibility in Authorship." (Editorial) Academic
Medicine, Vol. 66, No. 11 (November 1991), pp. 676-677.
The editor of Academic
Medicine discusses the ethical problems inherent in according
"honorary" authorship. She
closes by encouraging efforts by journal editors and scientists to develop
criteria and standards of authorship.
Friedman, P. J.
"Standards for Authorship and Publication in Academic Radiology."
Radiology, Vol. 189, No. 1 (October 1993), pp. 33-34.
The author reports on
publication standards adopted by the Association of University Radiologists in
May 1993. The standards are largely
consistent with those articulated by the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors and include (1) granting authorship only to individuals making
intellectual contributions to the work, (2) citing primary sources of
referenced ideas and information, (3) avoiding redundant and fragmented
publication, and (4) taking the initiative to correct or to retract incorrect
published findings.
Fye, W. B. "Medical
Authorship: Traditions, Trends, and Tribulations." Annals of Internal
Medicine, Vol. 113, No. 4 (August 15, 1990), pp. 317-325.
The author explores the
history of authorship practices in the medical sciences, describing how the
historically recent emphasis on quantity of publication as a criterion for
promotion has led to trivial, fragmented, and repetitive papers. The problems of multiple authorships,
duplicative publication, and rapid publication are also explored.
Glass, R. M. "New
Information for Authors and Readers: Group Authorship, Acknowledgments, and
Rejected Manuscripts." Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol.
268, No. 1 (July 1992), p. 99.
In this editorial, JAMA
clarifies its standards with regard to group authorship, acknowledgment, and
rejected manuscripts. All authors must
sign a statement affirming that they have participated substantially in the
conception and design of the work and the analysis of the data. Individuals making important technical
contributions may be acknowledged by name, but only with their permission. The policy concerning rejected manuscripts
was revised on January 6, 1993.
Originally, JAMA stated that peer reviewers would be asked to destroy
rejected manuscripts, but this was revised to have reviewers return manuscripts
to JAMA’s editorial staff.
Huth, E. J. "Guidelines
on Authorship of Medical Papers."
Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 104, N. 2 (February 1986), pp.
269-274.
Building on guidelines set
forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Dr. Huth lays
out five very explicit principles to apply in determining who merits authorship
on a paper. Participation limited to
the collection of data or the provision of advice is not a contribution that of
itself merits authorship, Dr. Huth points out.
These principles are further examined in the context of specific types
of publications (such as "review articles," "articles reporting
clinical, epidemiologic, or laboratory research," and "articles
reporting a case-series analysis").
Collective authorships and the sequence of authors are also discussed.
Lundberg, G. D., and A.
Flanagin. "New Requirements for Authors: Signed Statements of Authorship
Responsibility and Financial Disclosure."
Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 262, No. 14 (October
1989), pp. 203-2005.
In this statement, one of
the leading medical journals announces that (1) authors must sign a statement
confirming that they meet or will meet five responsibilities laid out in the
editorial, and (2) authors must identify in writing any financial interests
they may have in the substance of the manuscript they have submitted.
McCarthy, P. "The Paper
Mill." The New Physician, Vol. 42, No. 7 (October 1993), pp. 25-27.
The author gives an overview
of two troublesome publication practices that add to the size but not to the
quality of the scientific literature: (1) repetitive publication of a single
work and (2) "salami" publishing (publishing small segments of a
study in separate articles, rather than a single article on the entire breadth
of the study). The legal and ethical
problems presented by these practices, and the means by which journals and
libraries have dealt with them, are discussed.
Relman, A. S. "New
Information for Authors and Readers." New England Journal of Medicine,
Vol. 56, No. 1 (July 5, 1990), pp. _____.
In this notice, Dr. Relman,
editor of the journal, specifies requirements that authors must meet in
submitting abstracts and articles, many of which deal with the basic
responsibilities of authorship and the avoidance of financial conflicts of
interest.
Relman, A. S.,
"Publishing Biomedical Research: Roles and Responsibilities."
Hastings Center Report, Vol. 20, No. 3 (May/June 1990), pp. 23-27.
Dr. Relman reviews the
responsibilities and obligations of the three major participants in the
publication process: authors, reviewers, and editors. Dr. Relman notes that authors’ obligations, apart from being
accurate and honest, include being economical in expression, generously
acknowledging the works of others, and avoiding premature and unseemly
publicity about their work.
Riesenberg, D., and G. D.
Lundberg. "The Order of Authorship: Who’s on First?" Journal of the
American Medical Association, 264, No. 14 (October 1990, p. 1857. Also
[Letters] Vol. 265, No. 7 (February 1991), p. 865.
Editorial consensus on
authorship and other matters. Lancet 1985: 2:595.
International Committee of
Medical Journal Editors. Guidelines on authorship. Br. Med. J. 1985; 291; 722.
Huth,E. J. Standards on
authors’ responsibilities. (Editorial) Ann. Int. Med. 1985; 103:797.
Sample Contract Between Student and Professor
Regarding Authorship
MEMORANDUM
TO: [student]
FROM: Dr. Noitall
DATE:
RE: Supervision of Honours
thesis research
Working title: ...
I undertake to supervise
your thesis research on the topic of ___________ under the following
conditions:
Meetings. You are invited to join my research team and
to attend the regular team meetings, which will take place about once a month
during the summer months and weekly from September to May. (The time will be arranged to fit everyone's
schedules.) While the bulk of
supervision takes place in team meetings, you can also arrange individual
meetings with me as needed. You will be
asked to give a brief description of your progress at least once each month to
the research team.
Authorship. If your study is implemented as planned and
has interpretable results, we will jointly write up the study for submission
for publication. Assuming you complete
at least a complete first draft of the article within six months of submitting
the thesis, you would be assigned first authorship. After that date, I have the option of preparing the article(s)
for publication, and the order of authorship will be at my discretion. You will have an opportunity to review the
manuscript before submission in either case.
Other collaborators will be included as co-authors depending on their
contribution. I will provide references
on the topic of authorship credit if you wish.
Ownership of Data. The data you collect will be the property of
the University of _______________ and will be stored subject to university
regulations. Any use of the data by
others will be subject to my approval.
I hope these conditions will
be acceptable to you. Please feel free
to discuss the arrangements with me. I
would like a confirmation in writing of your acceptance of this agreement.
| Please Click the Button Below to Confirm Completion of this Module. For The University of Memphis Faculty and Graduate Assistants ONLY! |