next »

[abby]

Greetings,

I'm curious about the practice of including a lab head/research group head/professor-in-charge as a coauthor on a paper, even though he/she has actually not conducted any of the research or developed the research question. I realize this is contentious and very different across disciplines, and am asking about people's views and experiences in general, but also have a particular scenario at issue. An undergraduate conducted research with a staff scientist at a museum, but a tenured professor had to sign off on the project in order for the undergrad student to receive funding from the university. Now, the undergrad is a grad student looking to get a publication under his/her belt and is working with the staff scientist towards publishing the project. Must they include the tenured prof as a coauthor although he/she did nothing?

abby

[not a big deal]

Ask the prof if he wants to be included and what part of the paper he/she wants to take on.    One is offered a chance to contribute, not added for nothing.    Not being offered the chance after being critical to the project, even in a minor way,  may poison a relationship and all fields are small.   Often these get turned down because of busy schedules.

[anon]

It really depends - on the personality of the senior prof and whether s/he cares much. If s/he has an extensive pub list and is very busy, it might not matter - if s/he is looking to get a promotion to full prof, often it is desireable to include this person as co-author. When I worked in a lab pre-grad school, it was common practice for my boss to include as a co-author the head of the lab who routinely provided us with a critical component for the experiments, but had no actual contribution beyond that (he was also the boss's post-doc advisor). After boss got tenure, that practice was dropped.

[Be careful]

On one hand, a request or an expectation of gratuitous authorship on a publication, particularly if the only role the senior professor played was an introduction, is wrong, and would probably be viewed as potential misconduct if absolutely demanded.  On the other hand, if the senior professor and staff scientist at the museum have worked together, and both have contributed to the previous work upon which you project is based, and both individuals will review and analyze the data, or will work on the publication (most undergrads, and even many graduate students are virtually clueless about how to write a really good peer-reviewed journal article, and often need extensive help), then the senior professor's presence is not gratuitous.  It probably is best to start with a conversation with the museum staff scientist and talk frankly about each individual's role.  In the world of biomedical research where large laboratories provide a huge infrastructure and extensive intellectual support for undergrad and grad students, giving them the opportunity to quickly come up to speed, the advice, ideas, support, data review, assistance in problem solving, and other oversight often merits the senior professor's presence on peer-reviewed manuscripts, usually as last author, especially if the student's research was part of a funded grant project.  Be careful not to sling questionable accusations about authorship.  While it may seem trivial or of little consequence, accusations of misuse of authorship can be very serious allegations of scientific misconduct, and can be career-limiting issues.  And they can provoke vehement responses in return that can be absolutely ruinous to a graduate career, or even a future career as a scientist, as perceived false accusations from someone tend to follow them wherever they go.  Best of all, be open, honest, and gracious in your discussions and inquiries.

[time to find out]

This is a really good time for you to find out if you are working with a decent person or with a jackja**.

[anglo angle]

the exploitation of junior staff by senior academics who use their power to insist on a coauthorship credit is one of the biggest scandals in the academy.

How do those "stars" turn out hundreds of ("co-authored") articles in a career? And why does noone look at what they contain and how often they contradict.....

Let me tell you about the orthodox B-School prof who insisted on his name on a radical feminist critique of.... etc etc.

S'a crime. S'theft.

[%sig%]

[same scenario]

The top of this thread could almost have been written by me-- down to the fact that it's museum work and undergraduates-- except that I am currently a postdoc, working closely with undergraduates on research.  The professor who insists on having his name on the papers does not know the undergrads' names, has never attended a lab meeting, and has done no work related to the paper.  He doesn't know the literature and is really "dabbling" in this field.

The professor has told me (point blank, bar none) that any papers that get published from this work will have Well-Known-P.I.'s name on them.  

I have considered the following options:

1. finish up my postdoc and then submit papers.
2. submit them without his name while I'm still here, figuring A: he doesn't read these journals anyway and B: they won't be published until I'm gone; or,
3. grit my teeth and put his name on the papers.
(asking him if he would like to contribute is not an option-- he considers getting funding to be a contribution... is it??  honestly I don't think so, but perhaps in the weird world of academia it is...?)

These are great papers of which I'm extremely proud and will surely be published.  The undergrads have done excellent work and their names will be on the papers, too.

He has a long history of doing nothing and getting his name on everything.  If I hadn't seen it myself I wouldn't believe it.

And this is really a "big name" professor with millions in grants.

What do I do?

-Postdoc

[Senior Scholar]

Real question here to same scenario: is his name on the grant that's funding the work you're doing? In that case, his name has to be on the publication, or the granting agency is not likely to fund him for more work of this sort--which clearly serves the degrees and careers of the people who work for him..

A number of years ago (I don't know if this is still true), faculty who submitted grants in some of the practical fields where they did not have Ph.D.s (Nursing, Social Work) had to have the dean or some other "cover person" who did have a Ph.D. in order to get grant funding from federal agencies; the Dean or whatever then also was listed as an author of the resulting publication. Nevertheless the work got done, it had practical value, it was published, and it did good service also for the research career of the faculty involved.

Since this sort of thing is well understood in fields that deal with grants, I think there's no reason to have fits about it.

[in hell]

I think co-authorship should only be given when both people have done an equal, or almost equal, amount of work on a project. It seems that Big Profs add their names to Junior's work a lot in the sciences. But I am in the humanities and am currently in the middle of a 'co-authored' hell.

Main problem: Senior Colleague and I co-edited a book. I wrote the introduction, she did most of the editing work. So on the book, it will say the book is edited by Senior Colleague and Me. So far so good. But Senior Colleague will not allow for me to have single authorship of the introduction. Even though I wrote the whole thing, it says at the bottom 'by Me and Senior Colleague'. What do you all think of this? Am I right to feel exploited in some way?

Secondary problem: Senior Colleague has now presented "our" introduction at an overseas conference, in a foreign language, and is publishing that paper in the foreign language under her own name.
I feel this is unconscionable. I wrote to Senior Colleague of my distress and she has not emailed or contacted me for over a week.

Help!!!

[%sig%]

[same scenario]

Senior Scholar writes:
"Real question here to same scenario: is his name on the grant that's funding the work you're doing? In that case, his name has to be on the publication, or the granting agency is not likely to fund him for more work of this sort..."

This implies that authorship is not a statement of intellectual contribution, but a way of securing future funding, regardless of intellectual contribution.  I bristle at the thought.  Shouldn't funding be based on scholarly merit, and not your ability to hire cheap scholarly labor?

And I disagree about the nature of funding-- in past work, at a previous school, the P.I.'s did not have their name on half the work produced by the grant that funded the work.  The funding agency (in this case, NSF) would ask for "products" from the grant - and all of our papers/presentations/posters were listed as products.  This way the funding agency can see that the grant is producing results.  

Furthermore, I don't think he SHOULD receive continued funding from the granting agency.  This man just amasses papers about topics he knows little about.  Every student of his has left under duress, complaining about papers and authorship and the lack of guidance.  Many have quit.  He's now being considered to head a major center-- based NOT on his work, but the work of the pitiful postdocs who have served under him.

Will I be considered a poor colleague if I submit papers without his name?  Is it ethically suspect?  I cannot underscore how little input I have had from him.  And how obnoxious, condescending and mean-spirited he has been.

Help!

[coauthorship]

The short answer is:  if you are low on the totem pole the boss has the power so you have to do what he/she wants.  If you are high on the totem pole - shame on you if you expect authorship without substantial creative contributions.

The long answer is:  http://coauthorship.com 

[new_old_tt]

I invited a fellow faculty member to work on a project. We talked once or twice and he ran the code I wrote once. Other than that, he did not do anything. He was so passive and I gave up on him. I have spent a year of my time to finally come up with a good paper. Which of the three options I should adopt:

1. Not including him as a coauthor.

2. Include him as a coauthor (2nd author in fact) but demand he will do the same for me in the future.

3. Include him as a coauthor but add one or two other coauthors to dilute the value of co-authorship. In my field, if there are more than three authors, people know that the 1st author is the real author.

Your advice please.

[undecided_one]

Well, I have asked this question a number of times of the faculty I work with.  (I'm a staff type.)

What I have heard consistently is that for their field, a hard science area, it is assumed that the first author did the majority of the work, the middle ones provided varying levels of assistance, and the last co-author is the one who provided the funding. 

While there is a general attitude of disdain for those faculty who insist on being first author when it's the grad student's work, that the funding faculty member will take the last author spot is only expected.

That's my 1/2 a cent...good luck.

[pyshnov]

Using rules for coauthorship is bad in general because in case of later dispute these rules only complicate the situation, becoming themselves a subject of dispute. In the same category are the acknowledgements: all is fair and good when everyone is honest. When it's otherwise, suddenly - the wildest fraudulent interpretations of university rules become available to those in power.
My experience (http://ca.geocities.com/uoftfraud/) shows that a university administration has unlimited power and authority and can use it all for fraud, unhesitatingly putting in writing completely fraudulent statements taking away the very right of authorship, and... never be brought to justice.

[al_wallace]

I agree that graituitous co-authorship can be a problem and the often unwritten rule is the last author on a team of authors is the grant-generator. It is common for the one writing the paper to minimize the time it takes to write a grant, revise (a previously rejected grant), review other grants (which is what happens when you have a grant get funded), sit on funding panels (NIH, NSF etc.), and write annual reports for existing grants. This is an enormously time-consuming task and isn't cost free. No free lunches. The time it takes to conduct these activities takes away from what would have been bench time or manuscript writing time, thus the common solution is co-authorship. Further future funding wouldn't be possible for the grant-writer if they did not have their name on some papers (beyond requirements for NSF and NIH reports).

That being said, even the grant-writer should have at least participated in the design of the study (and they usually have if they wrote a grant to do it!) as well as being fully responsible for the contents of the paper (i.e. they should know what is in it, looked at the data, understand how it was procured, agree with the interpretation of the data, and minimally been involved in the editorial process if not writing process).

If however the head lab dude/dudette HASN'T written the grant, been involved in the design of the study, collected data, analyzed data, or written it up, then s/he shouldn't have her/his name on the paper. This does happen simply by virtue of being a sponsor and home for a post-doc or associate researcher--but it isn't ethical.