Editorial pubs.acs.org/ac
Cite This: Anal. Chem. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Who Are Your Coauthors? Make Sure To Follow Appropriate Practices
A
is acceptable. Most authors recognize these guidelines but not all. Case in point, an article was recently submitted to the Analytical Chemistry by a consortium. The lead author asserted that according to their consortium agreement, all of their members are required to be listed as authors, regardless of whether or not they made significant scientific contributions to the specific study. This is unethical (and at least for us, their argument did not succeed). The NAS also suggests that disclosing author roles is important and helps to discourage gift, honorary, and coercive authorships. We agree and will be exploring options to require author contribution disclosures in 2018. When reading the NAS report, I found the following of particular interest: “As data and code sharing become part of the usual practice of science, reuse of these scholarly outputs is increasingly common. The expectation is that the use or reuse of data and/or code produced by another researcher will be appropriately cited. Such recognition rewards the producer of the data and code while improving, extending, and building on these objects in their own right. It is inappropriate to condition data or code reuse on coauthorship when there is no other contribution to the paper. This is a coercive practice that slows the advancement of science when other mechanisms are in place to reward data and code contributors, such as citation... This is separate from, and not to be confused with, a data or code contributor who is or becomes part of the research team and collects novel data or builds code for the purposes of a research project or series of projects.” They are pointing out that the sharing of reagents, database access, and other resources, once published, should not require authorship. I am not sure this practice is universally followed. I encourage you to read the NAS report for greater detail about these issues and others. In a general editorial, I cannot answer most questions of authorship but hope that the discussions and decisions that go into these decisions are sound. I do have some advice. While potentially difficult, have frank discussions with your colleagues, especially those that feel they should be a coauthor on a manuscript. Failing to discuss authorship issues in advance creates problems in the long run (and at times, leads to e-mails to Editors or Department Heads). Lastly, no matter which side of the discussion you are on, do not base your argument on who “needs” the authorship (for example, to land a job or be promoted). While jobs and promotions are important, they do not determine authorship. Hopefully, with more open conversation and thought, authors contributing to Analytical Chemistry will not experience disputes related to authorship!
mong the ethical issues that I am asked to resolve as an editor, one of the hardest is dealing with authorship disputes. One reason this is difficult is because I obviously was not part of the research and manuscript preparation effort. Another reason, of course, is that authorship matters to those involved and often becomes an emotional issue. For most manuscripts, deciding on the author list is a straightforward process, especially when the work was performed by a limited number of individuals. But for studies involving many collaborators, and even perhaps when samples are run by professional staff, authorship decisions are tougher. I will never forget what one of my graduate mentors once said: “if you are working on a research project and are unsure if a collaborator did enough to be a coauthor, rest assured they are confident that they deserve authorship.” While the lead author has responsibility for the final decision on authorship, some contributions can fall into a gray area. For example, individuals may participate in a study but perhaps not in a “significant” or “substantial” way, and so an acknowledgment is more appropriate. Terms such as significant and substantial are open to interpretation. Here is another example that brings up issues. Besides running a research group and being an editor, I am the Director of the School of Chemical Sciences, which has high-end mass spectrometry and NMR facilities that employ skilled Ph.D. chemists. Typically these facilities run routine samples, but there are times when staff spend weeks creating a new method to enable a measurement or perform difficult data analyses. Do they deserve to be authors on papers that report the results of their efforts? I have been told that if you pay for a scientific service, then the individuals providing that service should not be coauthors. Note, however, there is nothing in the ACS ethical guidelines1 defining authorship that mentions pay, but rather, it is the level of scientific contribution that is determinative. After all, do we not pay our postdoctoral research associates from our grants and list them as authors? How can you learn more about making authorship decisions? A good place to start is by reading the ACS ethical guidelines.1 If you want broader perspective, a recent National Academies report2 deals with research integrity issues in science, and not surprisingly, a chapter is devoted to authorship. Just as outlined in the ACS guidelines, the NAS defines authors as those who made significant intellectual contributions: “Significant intellectual contributions can be made in the design or conceptualization of a study, the conduct of research, the analysis or interpretation of data, or the drafting or revising of a manuscript for intellectual content. Those who engage in these activities should be designated as authors of the reported work, and all authors should approve the final manuscript.” As noted in the report, unethical practices not only include leaving out authors who made contributions but also adding “ghost authors”; e.g., listing Directors, Department Heads, and colleagues who did not contribute to the workneither practice © XXXX American Chemical Society
A
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00785 Anal. Chem. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
Analytical Chemistry
■
Editorial
Jonathan V. Sweedler AUTHOR INFORMATION
ORCID
Jonathan V. Sweedler: 0000-0003-3107-9922 Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
■
REFERENCES
(1) American Chemical Society. Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research, https://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/ 1218054468605/ethics.pdf. (2) National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Fostering Integrity in Research, National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2017; 326 pages, DOI: 10.17226/21896, https://nap.edu/21896.
B
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.8b00785 Anal. Chem. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX
