Downloaded via ARIZONA STATE UNIV on July 1, 2018 at 08:14:15 (UTC). See https://pubs.acs.org/sharingguidelines for options on how to legitimately share published articles.
Chapter 4
Case Study: Contributorship and Authorship Hierarchy as a Form of Credit John D’Angelo* Division of Chemistry, Alfred University, Alfred, New York 14802, United States *E-mail:
[email protected].
Contributorship and authorship hierarchy, often manifested as author order, can be a hotly contested issue. Herein are case studies both real and hypothetical that depict the sensitivities associated this hierarchy.
Imagine This… Your research group submits a publication to a high-profile journal, where it is accepted and eventually appears in print. Suddenly, however, one of the authors objects to the author order and even claims that the paper was published without their consent. The paper was similar (having a different author order and other significant edits, including new experiments) to a previously submitted but rejected paper; there were no objections to that submission. The retraction of this paper, which occurred because the dispute could not be resolved, will severely hamper the fellowship application you are about to finish. Questions to ponder: • • •
Why wouldn’t the approval for a previous submission carry over to an approval of a second submission? If the edits were significant enough, should the author order be impacted, and, if so, does the inclusion of new experiments reach this threshold? In cases where author order is not explicitly implicative of contribution, should author order be grounds for objecting to a publication?
© 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.
Something very much like this has happened. At the core of the issue was the fact that one of the authors, Rodolfo Biekofsky, challenged the author order, specifically, his position as the eighth author. He went on to claim that, not only was this paper published without his consent, but that a similar paper submitted to four other journals listed him as a first author. The potential inappropriateness of the multiple submissions aside, one must wonder what prompted the change in author order, if Biekofsky was telling the truth (which is not immediately clear). Notably, his claim did not state they were simultaneous submissions. Biekofsky also provided evidence in the form of earlier purported drafts of initial versions of the paper that list him as first author and joint corresponding author. He claimed that he was never notified of the latest submission by his co-workers. The journal, in recognition of the potential impact of the work, gave the authors an opportunity to resolve the issue, but, when they failed to do so, the journal decided to retract the paper. Biekofsky went on to make other salacious claims against his co-authors that are unrelated to this publication, and the interested reader is encouraged to follow the link below for more information. Questions to ponder •
•
What other options besides retraction may a journal employ in cases where the science of a paper is not in question? Could something like a note or addendum be published to describe the dispute? As a retraction doesn’t erase the file from the computers of everyone who has viewed or downloaded it before it was retracted, what’s the point of a retraction in a case like this? What, if anything, does it really serve?
Source: Han, A.P. Retraction Watch. Dispute over author order torpedoes paper on syndrome linked to autism. October 11, 2017. http://retractionwatch.com/2017/ 10/11/dispute-author-order-torpedoes-paper-syndrome-linked-autism/#more52077 (accessed January 22, 2018).
Now Imagine This… You are collaborating with another lab and finish writing a paper, on which you are the corresponding author. As the corresponding author, it is you who will complete the task of submitting the paper and detailing the roles of the authors. The work was done by one of your students and one student in the collaborative lab. On one of the final drafts, in addition to adding the experimental protocols the lab used, you notice that the collaborator has suddenly added two previously unmentioned authors. Given the regulations regarding authorship established by your field and the journal’s policy of identifying the contributions of all the authors, you email the collaborator to determine these students’ specific roles in the research and find the answers to be slightly dodgy, not directly answering your question. The correspondence is amicable but leaves you unsure of the next step. 52 Mabrouk and Currano; Credit Where Credit Is Due: Respecting Authorship and Intellectual Property ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
Questions to ponder: • •
Should you press your collaborator for more details? If you do press for more details, how should you do this? If not, without a firm answer from your collaborator, how should you list the contributions of the newly-added authors?
Such scenarios have actually occurred. In 2017, Mexican chemist Sylvain Bernès, while putting the finishing touches on a paper, contacted the collaborating lab, with whom he had collaborated for many years, asking the head of the lab to review the paper and add any additional authors worthy of co-authorship. What Bernès received in return concerned him: the collaborator added three authors without any justification or explanation. To find out how Bernès responded, consult the source below. Questions to ponder: • •
What, if anything, justifies Bernès being concerned? Should Bernès simply trust his collaborator and add the authors, since he did ask the collaborator to add any worthy authors?
Source Stern, V. Retraction Watch. Unintended consequences: How authorship guidelines destroyed a relationship. July 5, 2017. https://retractionwatch.com/ 2017/07/05/unintended-consequences-guidelines-destroyed-relationship/ (accessed January 22, 2018).
53 Mabrouk and Currano; Credit Where Credit Is Due: Respecting Authorship and Intellectual Property ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2018.
