Editorial pubs.acs.org/OPRD
What’s in a Name?
A
As editor of OPR&D, I have occasionally been made aware of authorship disputes, usually when a person has been omitted from the list of authors. However, normally I would not intervene, except to raise the issue with the senior author, supply him/her with any correspondence on the matter, and then let the senior author make the decision. I would also like to point out the last sentence in the ethical guidelines paragraph highlighted above, and that concerns receiving permission from a co-author for the paper to include his/her name. In industry, where papers may be written up many years after the experimental work was carried out, this may be tricky and emphasises the importance of keeping in touch with those who have left the company. Even more difficult is the situation wherein the company has closed the site, so that all potential authors on a paper may be dispersed around the globe. Fortunately, networks such as Linked-In and Facebook can help with finding “lost” colleagues. Authors should make every effort to reach all authors on the paper, send each a copy of the manuscript, and get assent to the paper being published. Additionally, if the corresponding author has changed affiliation while the manuscript was being reviewed, then the new e-mail address should be provided in case of any queries after publication. May I also put in a plea for anyone who changes their contact information to update their profile in Paragon Plus so that we can still keep in touch? (See https:// acs.manuscriptcentral.com/acs.) We lose so many good reviewers and referees who have moved and forgot to tell us. Many scientists’ names in the literature are identical, and thus, if scientists use exactly the same format of their names at all times, it helps to track authorship so that multiple entries in databases do not occur. I am very fortunate, thanks to my parents, that there are not too many Trevor Lairds in the world; if you Google my name you come up with only two in the first few pages; the other is an actor and ex-ballet dancer who works on the Dr. Who TV series, so he takes precedence over me in Google! In conclusion, please remember that determination of authorship of papers is an important topic not to be taken lightly. Consider carefully those you choose to include and in what order so as to avoid the issues mentioned above. If you are in doubt about who should be credited on a paper, read the ACS Ethical Guidelines available on the ACS Web site, http:// pubs.acs.org/page/policy/ethics/index.html, or contact me or my Associate Editor, Jaan Pesti.
topic which has been discussed amongst ACS Editors in recent weeks is the authorship of papers, specifically, whose names should be included. For an industrial project which may have taken place over a number of years, it may well be that hundreds of scientists have worked on the project during its lifetime. The question is whether all of their names should really be on the paper. And what about the head of department, vice president of Process R&D, or even his boss? Should their names be included too? The ACS Ethical Guidelines clarify the situation: The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who have made significant scientific contributions to the work reported and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Authors should appropriately recognize the contributions of technical staff and data professionals. Other contributions should be indicated in a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. An administrative relationship to the investigation does not of itself qualify a person for coauthorship (but occasionally it may be appropriate to acknowledge major administrative assistance). Deceased persons who meet the criterion for inclusion as co-authors should be so included, with a footnote reporting date of death. No fictitious name should be listed as an author or coauthor. The author who submits a manuscript for publication accepts the responsibility of having included as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate. The submitting author should have sent each living coauthor a draft copy of the manuscript and have obtained the co-author’s assent to co-authorship of it. Of course there will be discussion concerning what the word “significant” means, but the later sentences in the guidelines indicate that technical assistance (e.g. provision of spectra for a synthetic project) is not necessarily regarded as significant enough for authorship. Rather, that person’s name could be included in the acknowledgments. However, if that person had been involved in the key aspects of the project, such as determining the structure of an intermediate or an important impurity in the synthesis, then that might warrant inclusion as an author. Nevertheless, it is up to the senior author of the paper to make that judgment. It is also clear from the guidelines that Heads of Departments, Vice Presidents, and others in a purely administrative role should not be included unless they have made a significant contribution to the project as well. They should not be included as authors just because the work was carried out in their department. We do not want “ghost” authors on papers in Organic Process Research & Development (OPR&D). With subcontracting and outsourcing of work, the situation regarding authorship can get quite difficult, but in general I would imagine that the workers at a subcontractor/outsourcing company would rarely be included as authors and instead should be thanked for their work in the acknowledgments. Again, if they actually contributed significantly or intellectually to the project, then consideration may be due. © XXXX American Chemical Society
■
Trevor Laird, Editor AUTHOR INFORMATION
Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
A
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op400074e | Org. Process Res. Dev. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
