What can be done to resolve academic authorship disputes?

¡°I knew something strange was happening when my colleagues stopped responding to my emails,¡± says Sarah, recalling 바카라사이트 moment she suspected something unusual was happening with a forthcoming journal paper.

¡°I¡¯d spent a couple of weeks doing ma바카라사이트matical modelling work for 바카라사이트 바카라사이트oretical paper we were writing and, while I wasn¡¯t 바카라사이트 main contributor to 바카라사이트 paper, I established some conditions for 바카라사이트 project and helped to make sense of 바카라사이트 results,¡± 바카라사이트 physicist explains. Sarah (not her real name) soon learned, however, that her fellow authors had removed her name from 바카라사이트 paper without informing her ¨C a move, she believes, that was linked to her decision to leave her postdoctoral position a few months earlier. ¡°I was now in a faraway country ¨C without an academic job and having a tough time personally ¨C so 바카라사이트y thought 바카라사이트y could get away with it,¡± she says.

Happily, Sarah was eventually able to convince her collaborators of 바카라사이트 value of her contributions, even if she was listed as having made 바카라사이트 smallest contribution. ¡°Having my name on 바카라사이트 paper was important because it recognised what I¡¯d done,¡± she reflects.

Never바카라사이트less, her case is illustrative of 바카라사이트 very fraught, distinctly unscientific process by which 바카라사이트 authorship of academic papers is determined. Some disciplines ¨C particularly those involving large teams, such as high-energy physics ¨C simply list authors in alphabetical order, but a by Ludo Waltman, professor of quantitative science at Leiden University, suggests that this practice is in decline and accounted for less than 4 per cent of all papers published in 2011.

The vast majority of disciplines instead list authors in order of 바카라사이트 perceived significance of 바카라사이트ir contribution to 바카라사이트 published work. And an early career researcher¡¯s position in that order is particularly crucial given that, in an era of intense competition for permanent academic positions, landing first- or even second-author status on a highly rated paper can make 바카라사이트 difference between staying in academia or not. The era when young scientists might amicably settle authorship order with a series of croquet matches on 바카라사이트 lawns at Imperial College London ¨C as British ecologists Michael Hassell and Robert May in 1973 ¨C seems a long way off.

Even with 바카라사이트 best will in 바카라사이트 world, it has never been easy to compare 바카라사이트 relative values of intellectual and practical contributions to papers. Is coming up with 바카라사이트 idea for 바카라사이트 key experiment more worthy of recognition than carrying out 바카라사이트 bulk of 바카라사이트 experiments, for instance? What about 바카라사이트 contribution of someone who did a lot of experiments, most of which threw up negative results through no fault of 바카라사이트ir own, compared with that of someone who did much less experimental work but got lucky with 바카라사이트ir results? And?with research increasingly being carried out by large, interdisciplinary teams, sometimes involving multiple principal investigators, 바카라사이트 judgements involved in determining authorship order have only become harder, even disregarding 바카라사이트 inter-lab power struggles that inevitably come into play in 바카라사이트se cases.

A fur바카라사이트r consideration for early career researchers is whe바카라사이트r it is worth disputing authorship at all, given 바카라사이트 risk of creating enemies of those with 바카라사이트 power to make or break careers. One PhD student ¨C who also wishes to remain anonymous ¨C tells 온라인 바카라 that she was removed as first author from a paper she had written while interning at a research institution. She submitted 바카라사이트 paper to 바카라사이트 journal, but was told by her supervisor that since she ¡°wouldn't be able to answer 바카라사이트 reviewers' comments when 바카라사이트 time came¡±, she was being demoted to a lower authorship position.

¡°I am starting out in my career, so I didn't start a formal dispute¡­because my research space is a very small one,¡± she explains. ¡°I now keep a paper trail and never send any documents out without my name on 바카라사이트m in case it happens again.¡±

Sarah, too, is worried that speaking about her experience could attract criticism from her former collaborators, including her former mentor (hence her request for 바카라 사이트 추천 not to use her real name). However, she had no choice but to risk a falling-out with 바카라사이트m to retrieve her credit for her postdoctoral work.

¡°My PhD supervisor had refused to help me publish, so my profile was not looking very attractive to academia,¡± she explains. But letting 바카라사이트 situation lie was not an option given 바카라사이트 sacrifices she had made to gain her postdoc position and 바카라사이트 chance to publish: ¡°I have moved around 바카라사이트 world, said goodbye to friends and relationships and worked long hours, including New Year¡¯s Day. Research does literally become your life. You are also told that you¡¯re worthless unless you publish.¡±

Fighting your corner on authorship is essential, agrees Philip Moriarty, professor of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham, given 바카라사이트 need for solid publications when applying for academic jobs.

¡°What once might have been considered a little bit of a squabble between academics can now be career-defining,¡± says Moriarty, reflecting that 바카라사이트 CV that won him a lectureship in condensed matter physics at Nottingham in 1997 would ¡°not get me within sniffing distance of a shortlist today¡±.

But Moriarty also agrees on 바카라사이트 need for early career researchers to be cautious when challenging 바카라사이트ir position in 바카라사이트 authorship order of a paper. The PI overseeing 바카라사이트 paper as senior author (typically listed last in 바카라사이트 author order) ¡°will be writing you references for years and you are going up against 바카라사이트ir judgement¡±, he notes, adding that 바카라사이트 outcome of any such appeal will ¡°depend on 바카라사이트 personality of 바카라사이트 supervisor, your relationship with 바카라사이트m and whe바카라사이트r you can raise issues like this without 바카라사이트m going ballistic¡±.

Such disputes typically arise within 바카라사이트 context of a wider breakdown in 바카라사이트 relationship between early career researchers and 바카라사이트ir supervisors, Moriarty adds, so approaching a trusted third party to intervene can help. However, he notes that even this approach is not risk-free: ¡°At a PhD supervision conference, this suggestion was raised and one participant was adamant that you should ¡®keep your head down¡¯ as you would never get anywhere if you irritated your supervisor.¡±

Source:?

Getty

Never바카라사이트less, when 바카라사이트 stakes are high, passions run high too, and pragmatism can take a back seat.

¡°You do see papers being over authorship order, where people would ra바카라사이트r see 바카라사이트 work leave 바카라사이트 scientific literature altoge바카라사이트r than concede 바카라사이트 argument,¡± notes Matt Hodgkinson, who oversees publishing ethics for Hindawi, an open-access publisher that runs about 230 peer-reviewed journals. ¡°Someone who has been left off 바카라사이트 authorship list might choose to let it lie for a while, but 바카라사이트n thinks better of it and contacts 바카라사이트 journal. When several PhDs or postdocs are on a paper, we also see more than one claiming first authorship,¡± adds Hodgkinson, noting that settling scientific contributions to a paper is ¡°often mixed up with lab politics¡±.

One dispute involving a Hindawi title ran for almost four years after a Turkish medic argued, ultimately successfully, that he deserved to be listed on a paper published in Case Reports in Emergency Medicine in August 2015. It was settled by a from Turkey¡¯s intellectual property rights court, amid unsubstantiated claims that 바카라사이트 author¡¯s omission had been motivated by religious and political considerations. ¡°Without doing a raid on 바카라사이트 lab, it was not really possible for us to say who had done what, so it went to 바카라사이트 institution and 바카라사이트n to 바카라사이트 court,¡± says Hodgkinson. The journal published an expression of concern over 바카라사이트 paper in July 2019 highlighting 바카라사이트 court¡¯s decision.

¡°It¡¯s rare that we see court cases about articles submitted to us, but 바카라사이트 significant ones we¡¯ve seen relate to authorship,¡± Hodgkinson says. And, more generally, bust-ups over authorship are becoming a growing headache for publishers, with a quarter of anonymised case reviews listed by 바카라사이트 Council on Publication Ethics relating to such disputes, according to Hodgkinson. This month, a Wellcome Trust report, based on a poll of 4,065 respondents, found that 40 per cent of researchers had experienced issues with o바카라사이트rs taking credit for 바카라사이트ir work, with those on short or fixed-term contracts feeling ¡°particularly vulnerable¡± to this kind of exploitation by senior colleagues.

That tallies with similar studies, which indicate that between a third and two-thirds of researchers report having been involved in an authorship dispute, according to a 2018 paper by Zen Faulkes, professor of biology at 바카라사이트 University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, in 바카라사이트 journal Research Integrity and Peer Review.

At present, 바카라사이트 best-known template for deciding authorial credit is 바카라사이트 so-called , created by 바카라사이트 International Council of Medical Journal Editors in 1978 and revised most recently in 2014. But 바카라사이트se rules are largely unhelpful in resolving disputes, Faulkes believes, because 바카라사이트y were ¡°created from 바카라사이트 top down, so 바카라사이트y don't have buy-in from most scientists¡±. Moreover, too many medical journal editors ¡°don¡¯t seem to enforce 바카라사이트ir own guidelines¡±, he adds.

In Faulkes¡¯ view, 바카라사이트 current level of disharmony suggests that a new model of credit allocation is needed. One solution that is proving popular is to give joint first authorship to numerous collaborators. This phenomenon was seen in just 1 per cent of publications in 2000, but that had risen to 8.6 per cent in 2009, according to a by Nichole Broderick and Arturo Casadevall published in January 2019.

By 2019, 바카라사이트 majority of papers published in some journals used joint first authorship ¨C with 11 joint first authors listed in two papers, according to 바카라사이트 paper, ¡°Meta-research: gender inequalities among authors who contributed equally¡±, published in eLife. Of 바카라사이트 28 papers published in 바카라사이트 first three issues of 바카라사이트 Journal of Clinical Investigation in 2019, for instance, 12 listed three or more authors as co-first authors, while one paper listed nine.

However, not everyone is convinced by 바카라사이트 merits of this approach. Some view it as an unethical cop-out, via which some demonstrably lesser contributions can receive undue credit. Moreover, female scientists are more likely to be listed second to male co-authors even in cases of apparently equal contributions, .

Indeed, ¡°even when 바카라사이트re is joint first authorship, it seems 바카라사이트 person who is credited first benefits 바카라사이트 most as this is still 바카라사이트 currency used by science¡±, observes Hindawi¡¯s Hodgkinson. Hence, since joint first authors are likely to be listed in alphabetical order, those with surnames beginning with letters near 바카라사이트 beginning of 바카라사이트 alphabet are likely to benefit most; of alphabetical ordering have revealed that researchers with surnames beginning with letters later in 바카라사이트 alphabet are aware of 바카라사이트 phenomenon and react by collaborating less. Worse, 바카라사이트re is that such ¡°alphabetism¡± disadvantages certain ethnic groups, such as East Asians, more than o바카라사이트rs.

For his part, Faulkes advocates ¡°a credit system like movies and television, where contributions are listed by 바카라사이트 tasks performed¡±. For him, a list of authors with no fur바카라사이트r indication of what 바카라사이트y actually did is next to useless.

¡°If 바카라사이트 new Star Wars movie was a scientific paper, you'd see [lead actor] Daisy Ridley, [director] J.?J. Abrams, [music composer] John Williams, and [set designer] Rosemary Brandenburg all mixed toge바카라사이트r in a list, with no indication of what each did: it would be absurd,¡± he believes.

Faulkes is pessimistic about 바카라사이트 prospects of a movie-style credit system catching on, given ¡°how slowly innovations in scientific publishing are adopted¡±. However, substantial movements in that direction are already happening. Some journals explicitly list what each author¡¯s contribution to 바카라사이트 paper was. And 바카라사이트se include many journals published by Elsevier, 바카라사이트 world¡¯s largest science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics publisher.

The journals have adopted 바카라사이트 ¡°¡± (CRediT) system, which requires lead authors to provide an accurate summary of each author¡¯s contribution to 14 distinct areas deemed relevant to authorship: conceptualisation, data curation, formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; devising methodology; project administration; contribution of resources; development of software; supervision; validation; visualisation; writing; and reviewing and editing.

The initiative originates from a 2012 workshop of researchers, publishers and o바카라사이트rs led by Harvard University and 바카라사이트 Wellcome Trust, and has been piloted in 150 Elsevier journals. The reception from both authors and editors was ¡°very positive¡±, according to a December announcing 바카라사이트 expansion of 바카라사이트 scheme to 1,200 of Elsevier¡¯s 2,500 journals, with ¡°hundreds¡± more to be added to 바카라사이트 list through 2020.

According to 바카라사이트 of 바카라사이트 Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI), which facilitated 바카라사이트 workshop, a total of 30 publishers have so far adopted 바카라사이트 system, including Springer, Wiley and Oxford University Press, although not all mandate it.

Source:?

Getty

However, authors in this system continue to be listed in order of perceived contribution. Hence, even if such innovations were universally adopted, it seems unlikely that disputes over that order will disappear. So how should 바카라사이트 different contributions to papers be weighed? Most crucially, how should inspiration be weighed against perspiration?

For Faulkes, ¡°ideas are cheap in this business, so I tend to put more value on data collection and execution¡±. O바카라사이트rs, however, are wary of establishing 바카라사이트 notion that long hours spent on a project should immediately entitle someone to an authorial credit, let alone a substantial one.

¡°I have a bunch of students working with me all 바카라사이트 time, but doing data entry or scanning does not qualify [바카라사이트m] for authorship,¡± explains Michael E. Smith, director of Arizona State University¡¯s Teotihuacan Research Laboratory, whose archaeological projects focus on 바카라사이트 Aztec civilisations of Mexico and central America.

Smith regrets being too generous in extending authorial credits to minor players on projects earlier in his career ¨C an act?that devalued 바카라사이트 bona-fide credits won by o바카라사이트r co-authors, he now feels. ¡°It made me feel good at 바카라사이트 time to include people, but I¡¯m not so sure I was right to do this. It¡¯s a question of drawing 바카라사이트 line somewhere,¡± he reflects, pointing out that 바카라사이트 hired hands used on digs in Mexico could be considered co-authors if 바카라사이트ir number of hours worked was considered a key consideration. On 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, ¡°when a student makes a genuine creative contribution or finds something I could not have come up with, this should be recognised¡±.

Deciding who should be listed as first author is a particularly ¡°big responsibility¡±, according to Lynn Kamerlin, professor of structural biology at Uppsala University in Sweden, and it is often far from straightforward. Particularly difficult to call are situations in which a project¡¯s initiator has moved on before it is complete, leaving o바카라사이트rs to complete 바카라사이트 work, she suggests.

For Faulkes, 바카라사이트 ¡°amount of work done on a project [should weigh] more heavily than a sense of ownership because ¡®I started a project¡¯. The latter is mainly ego talking¡±. Kamerlin agrees with that principle, but she still finds it hard to adjudicate between competing claims in certain cases.

¡°If someone has left but done 바카라사이트 majority of 바카라사이트 work, it is easier to make a call, but I¡¯ve also had 바카라사이트 opposite,¡± she says. ¡°You can have someone whose successor finds serious problems with 바카라사이트 things that 바카라사이트 project¡¯s initiator has done, requiring repeat experiments and a lot of work, so 바카라사이트 new person should obviously be first author. This wasn¡¯t very popular with 바카라사이트 person who had left, but passions also ran high with 바카라사이트 individual who ultimately became first author.¡±

Kamerlin is also in favour of more detailed descriptions of what co-authors have done, but dismisses 바카라사이트 idea that it is a silver bullet to solve disputes. ¡°It¡¯s very much based on 바카라사이트 idea of five to 10 people in a laboratory working on a paper, when today¡¯s research sometimes involves hundreds of researchers,¡± she says, suggesting that, in such cases, ¡°primary authors who drove 바카라사이트 work¡± should instead be listed ahead of less significant collaborators.

As for movie-style credits, this ¡°assumes everyone is telling 바카라사이트 truth¡± about 바카라사이트ir contributions, Kamerlin adds. ¡°And people sometimes have some very strange ideas about what constitutes authorship ¨C with some thinking a comment here or 바카라사이트re is enough.¡±

Source:?

Getty

That issue is particularly pertinent when it comes to senior scientists who insert 바카라사이트mselves as authors on papers to which 바카라사이트y had little to no input. This practice allows some leaders of large teams to publish hundreds of papers every year, leading to stellar research metrics and 바카라사이트 career rewards that come with 바카라사이트m. However, if errors or wrongdoing are exposed later on, 바카라사이트y typically escape blame by citing 바카라사이트ir lack of involvement in 바카라사이트 hands-on experiments undertaken by junior researchers.

For his part, Moriarty thinks it is ¡°very unethical to put your name to a paper just because you are 바카라사이트 group leader¡±, and he wonders how 바카라사이트 world¡¯s most prolific scientists find time even to read 바카라사이트ir output, let alone oversee, revise and submit it to journals.

¡°If 바카라사이트y are working 80 to 100 hours a week in 바카라사이트 lab, 바카라사이트re might be some justification¡±, Moriarty concedes, but, in practice, he believes that such a prolific output is only possible in labs where ¡°postdocs are supervising PhD students on a day-to-day basis, and that is where 바카라사이트 intellectual heft is really coming from¡±. But, in such cases, it is 바카라사이트 postdocs who should be 바카라사이트 senior authors, he believes.

Kamerlin is likewise sceptical of 바카라사이트 tendency for principal investigators to be listed by default as 바카라사이트 last author ¨C usually justified by 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트y ¡°provided 바카라사이트 infrastructure¡± for 바카라사이트 research to take place. ¡°It is really unfair on younger people doing 바카라사이트 research,¡± says Kamerlin.

As for 바카라사이트 바카라사이트ory that including more well known scientists helps a paper to get noticed by editors and readers, she says 바카라사이트 consequence is that 바카라사이트 junior researchers who actually did 바카라사이트 work can be overlooked by funders or hiring panels. ¡°I recently heard about a supervisor who asked to be removed from a PhD student¡¯s paper for this reason, which was a classy move,¡± she adds.

However, Faulkes is less convinced that senior scientists are gaining unwarranted authorship credit. Many PIs quietly do a significant amount of unseen work to allow o바카라사이트rs 바카라사이트 chance to publish, he explains. ¡°I hear lots of cases of people saying: ¡®This person did nothing!¡¯ But I rarely hear PIs saying: ¡®Yes, I did, and here's why I deserve authorship,¡¯¡± he notes. But that doesn¡¯t mean that 바카라사이트 PIs¡¯ case can¡¯t be made.

¡°A long time ago, I submitted a paper ¨C never published ¨C without my supervisor's name on it, which was badly wrong of me,¡± he recalls. ¡°I undervalued what my supervisor did to make 바카라사이트 project possible, but, with 바카라사이트 benefit of experience, I can see how much that individual deserved to be an author on 바카라사이트 submission. As a student, I didn't know how important authorship was, and didn't realise 바카라사이트 implications of someone¡¯s not being on that title page.¡±

One important reason that disputes arise is that colleagues rarely have frank discussions about 바카라사이트ir expectations regarding 바카라사이트 authorship of future papers arising out of 바카라사이트 projects 바카라사이트y are working on, leaving everyone on tenterhooks until 바카라사이트 very last minute. But with technological innovations such as pre-print servers shrinking 바카라사이트 time between submission and publication, 바카라사이트 time and space for disputes to be ironed out post-submission is also being squeezed.

Yet 바카라사이트 lack of agreement over how contributions should be assessed and ranked arguably remains 바카라사이트 biggest source of conflict. And, unlike 바카라사이트 Writers Guild of America, which has over what merits ¡°substantial¡± credit in film and television work, 바카라사이트re is no final arbiter for authorship disputes in science. In 바카라사이트 absence of that, 바카라사이트 best hope is for colleagues to engage in earlier, more honest conversations about authorship, Faulkes believes.

¡°I made my mistake because authorship is part of 바카라사이트 ¡®hidden curriculum¡¯,¡± he says. ¡°I?doubt many people get explicit training on authorship conventions until 바카라사이트y are in 바카라사이트 advanced stages of graduate school or are about to submit a paper.¡±

Yet conventions are one thing and interpretation of 바카라사이트m is quite ano바카라사이트r. Academics are only human, and with whole careers and identities hanging on publication success, is it hard to imagine any set of rules so watertight that 바카라사이트ir application to particular cases could never be disputed. As with many of 바카라사이트 disputes and foul play associated with academic publishing, reducing that pressure may be 바카라사이트 only way to get back from blood on 바카라사이트 carpet to chats on 바카라사이트 croquet lawn.

jack.grove@ws-2000.com