Downloaded via ARIZONA STATE UNIV on July 1, 2018 at 08:17:02 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Chapter 14
Case Study: Authorship with Students in the Research Group at the Research University John D’Angelo* Division of Chemistry, Alfred University, Alfred, New York14802, United States *E-mail:
[email protected].
Authorship is sometimes complicated, especially when colleagues disagree about when to publish. This can particularly be an issue between students and their mentors. Care must be taken to ensure that worthy coauthors, especially undergraduates, are not snubbed. Herein are cases that explore the exclusion of potentially or questionably worthy authors and disagreements about when something should be published.
Imagine This… Frank Hawk is about to graduate and, as he finishes his Ph.D. work, he trains a new graduate student, Callie Sampson, to take the project to the next stages. A few years go by, and Frank has settled into his independent career as a faculty member. He sees Callie at a conference, and the two get to chatting. At one point, he asks Callie, “What happened to our project, I’m surprised you and Jones (their mentor) haven’t published yet.” Callie responds in a frustrated tone, “Oh, don’t get me started. Every time I think I’m done, the boss gives me five more experiments to try, saying, ‘It’ll make the paper bigger, and bigger is better.’” Frank contemplates this for a moment and says to her, “Hey, you know what? Since I technically started the project and handed it off to you, maybe we should just write it together. We’ll add Jones as an author, of course, but, we should be able to publish our work, right?” Callie considers Frank’s offer for a moment and says, “Frank, that’d be great. I really want this postdoc position at Harvard, but I’ll never get it without at least one more paper.” © 2018 American Chemical Society Mabrouk and Currano; Credit Where Credit Is Due: Respecting Authorship and Intellectual Property ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Some points to ponder: • • •
Are Frank and Callie right? Is this their project and work to publish? When, if at all, should Frank and Callie let Jones know of their plan? If you were Jones, what would you do upon receiving such a draft?
Issues where the opinion of a student or other research associate differs from that of the PI on the publishability of the work are not uncommon. In one case, Mavi Camarasa, who once worked in the laboratories of Daniel Bachiller, felt the work was more publishable than Bachiller. Their lab was apparently the first to correct the most common cystic fibrosis mutation in stem cells derived from a patient, and this sort of discovery would potentially be of benefit to afflicted persons or carriers of this terrible disease. Camarasa claimed that, much to her chagrin, Bachiller insisted that the project was not yet complete and that the publication must wait. A a few years passed, Camarasa left the lab, and a large portion of this work was scooped (meaning, another group published a report of their own, similar work). Camarasa hatched a plan to write the paper, get it accepted, and then tell Bachiller, despite the fact that she was no longer a member of his lab. Her first attempt at publication was rejected. After switching target journals, she finally told Bachiller of her plan. He responded, not by telling her to stop altogether but by insisting that she submit a more complete paper to a higher-profile journal than her revised target. Camarasa rejected this idea and went ahead with her original plan; the paper was accepted and subsequently published. Bachiller found out and engaged in a dispute over the work. Some additional points to ponder: • • •
• • •
Should Bachiller have ordered one of the current workers to do the additional work necessary to expand the paper as he desires? Was Bachiller unreasonable with his demands? Should Camarasa have simply written the more complete paper as Bachiller suggested, even though Camarasa had been removed from the project for a few years by then? What should the journal do with this paper? Did Camarasa have any right to do as she did? Does it matter that Camarasa is no longer part of the lab?
To find out the fate of this paper, see the source below: Source: Han, A.P. Retraction Watch. Author of retracted gene editing paper alleges “bullying” by former PI. June 12, 2017. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/06/ 12/author-retracted-gene-editing-paper-alleges-bullying-former-pi/#more-50485 (accessed January 22, 2018).
160 Mabrouk and Currano; Credit Where Credit Is Due: Respecting Authorship and Intellectual Property ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Now, Imagine This Scenario… Felicity Brick just got back from her REU program (Research Experience for Undergraduates, a National Science Foundation-supported summer research program), and she is talking with her friend, Jess Sinclair, who had done summer researchwith one of their professors at their home institution, a PUI (Primarily Undergraduate Institution). They are exchanging stories about summer experiences when Felicity receives a text message from the graduate student with whom she worked most closely, and, by a strange coincidence, Jess gets one at the same time from the professor with whom she worked. After reading their texts, they exchange excited news, Felicity saying, “They’re getting published” while Jess simultaneousy blurts out, “I’m getting published”. Jess then says, almost sympathetically, “Oh, Felicity, you did way more work on your project than I did on mine. Why aren’t you on the author list too?” “Oh, I don’t mind; the group is huge and like half the grad students are on the paper,” Felicity responds, continuing, “Plus, I was just a summer student…I bet someone repeated my results dozens of times, even since I left. They probably didn’t even use my actual data, even if they were using the optimizations I made to the protocol using that trick we learned in Biochem with Professor Hendey to enhance signal to noise. The data we started getting was so much better than anything before it. They even cited the lab manual Hendy wrote for our class.” Jess frowns and says “I don’t think it matters that the group is big and that they repeated your results. It’s not ethical to exclude you if you contributed to the work, and it really sounds to me like you did.” Some points to ponder • •
Is Felicity right to be so easy-going, or is Jess right that Felicity should be included? Should Hendey have been offered coauthorhip?
Such contributions of undergraduate researchers are often “at risk” of going unacknowledged. A few years ago, an individual claiming to be an undergraduate researcher posted an unsubstantiated comment on reddit that they were denied authorship on a paper, despite the fact that they made, from their perspective, major contributions to the work and wrote at least the introduction to the paper. Although there is no reason to believe the case is, in fact, real, in the absence of evidence of it being fabricated, let us assume its veracity since it is illustrative of several important issues. According to this student, their adviser for the research project (who was a postdoc and not the PI), said that authorship would not be given because “…despite the significant work you are putting into it, given the already large number of coauthors…” (see source below) The student was also given a promise of being listed as a coauthor next time. According to the post, graduate students in the lab were supportive of the student, as were most of the responders to the post on reddit. In particular, readers pointed out that the number of authors should not impact this decision at all. Also, readers pointed out that this decision should not 161 Mabrouk and Currano; Credit Where Credit Is Due: Respecting Authorship and Intellectual Property ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
be the postdoc’s to make; rather, the PI should make such a decision. Both reader points are valid. Taking the comments from not only the graduate students but also the postdoc at face value, the undergraduate student was not inflating their role. The postdoc’s comments, in particular, were very suggestive that the student made a significant contribution. It is noteworthy that one of the things compelling the student to not fight this and bring it to the attention of the PI is the anticipation or plan to continue working in this lab for the next few years. The student is worried that this sort of fight would spoil a working relationship and potentially cost them a letter of recommendation. This fear, though reasonable is grossly unfair. Much is (rightfully) made of the virtual stranglehold an advisor has over graduate students and how graduate students are the academic equivalent of an indentured servant. Undergraduates have it at least as hard. Some additional points to ponder: • • •
What else could the student have done? If the graduate students really thought this student deserved authorship, are they ethically bound to speak up? Is the PI at fault for not being more involved?
Note: A postdoc is someone who has already completed Ph.D. studies and is employed to work in the lab, typically as a researcher, although some post doc appointments include teaching as well. Such appointments typically last 1-3 years. Postdocs are often leaders in the labs in which they work and are given more responsibilities than a typical graduate student but do not experience the same demands as a faculty person (i.e. they are not PIs).
Source Mechanical_Toaster. Reddit.com: Ask Academia. I’ve written most of a paper and was denied co-authorship; 2015. https:// www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/2elcqk/ive_written_most_of_a_ paper_and_was_denied/ (accessed April 26, 2018).
162 Mabrouk and Currano; Credit Where Credit Is Due: Respecting Authorship and Intellectual Property ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
