 | |
I am thinking about writing a paper with a former graduate
school colleague who is now employed in industry. Should my colleague let his
boss know about the paper? Should he include his boss as an author? Should I
include my advisor's name as an author? I am confused about this; my friend
said it's appropriate that only the two of us are the authors. I am afraid of
being sued.Thank you for your help!
Your question reflects an important issue that challenges
both graduate students and faculty – that of authorship. Where does the
ownership of research data and intellectual property reside? Who should be
included as co-authors? What are legal and proprietary claims of the
institution, an employer, or collaborators? When should these issues be
decided? Why are decisions about authorship such an important part of
scientific research and publishing?
Most institutions consider the products of work done with
university resources to be “of interest to,” if not outright owned by, the
university. For example, your university’spolicy may consider that “[a]ll inventions or discoveries shall be
deemed of proprietary interest to the University if the inventor was employed
or otherwise financially supported by the University or if he/she used
University facilities, materials or time to conceive and develop the discovery
or invention.”
Research data and results are not strictly inventions. But
if you conduct your research in a university lab, or while employed by Columbia, you must
discuss the use of any data for publication with your faculty advisor. Most
P.I.s have their own policies about who should be included as authors, and in
what order. For example, it is more likely in the social sciences that faculty
P.I.s will be listed as first author on research completed with data from their
funded projects; in the life and physical sciences, faculty P.I.s are listed
last, with many other co-authors -- students, post-docs, and research
associates. Students in the arts and humanities almost always publish as sole
author.
It’s best to discuss in advance with your advisor and
mentors their policy, as well as any departmental guidelines, for use of data
from their labs or for independent research done with university resources. In
fact, ask this question when selecting a lab and advisor. Find out who will be
included as co-authors and discuss the expectations for first (and second,
third, etc.) authors. What is your and other authors’ role in data collection?
Data analysis? Writing the first draft of the manuscript? Gathering co-authors’
comments and editing the final manuscript? Submitting the manuscript and
responding to reviewers’ comments? Responding to readers’ questions and requests
for more information about the research? (Some published articles list
corresponding authors; their contributions should be much more than handling
questions and sending reprints.)
Determining appropriate authorship is important to
scientific integrity. It’s not always easy; some researchers have found the
consequences of inappropriate decisions to be embarrassing or worse – poor
decisions can cause irreparable harm to collaborative partnerships, reputation,
and current and future employment.
Beth Fischer and Michael Zigmond at the University of Pittsburgh
have offered a set of criteria for determining who should be included as
authors: Include contributors
-
who make substantial intellectual contribution to the
manuscript,
-
who know enough about the research to be able to respond to
questions and requests for more information,
-
and who participated in preparation of the manuscript by
writing, editing, or approving the final paper.
Many editorial and program policies follow recommendations
from the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors that all authors should
-
make a substantial contribution to the research design,
data, or analysis,
-
draft or offer significant revisions the manuscript’s intellectual
content,
-
approve the final manuscript for submission and publication.
Other good resources to consult are the Society for
Neuroscience (1999) for specifics about responsibilities of authors, reviewers,
and editors in neuroscience, with implications for scientific communication in
general. And see Fine and Kurdek (1993) for cases and policies on authorship
issues involving faculty and students, including publishing from undergraduate
student papers and master’s and doctoral students’ research.
You are absolutely right to seek out more information about
this issue. It can be complicated, sensitive, and, yes, people have sued former
colleagues and research partners, published articles have been revised to
correct authorship, and well-respected researchers have tarnished their
reputations by not thoroughly considering and appropriately crediting their
colleagues.
In your specific situation, yes, your friend should check
with his supervisor at the company. If his contribution to the manuscript
is related to his current work or if he used company time, materials, or
equipment, the company would likely want credit and/or have some control or
rights.
You also should check with your advisor. If you and your
advisor or lab P.I. have not discussed authorship as a general policy of your
work with the advisor and at Columbia,
then it’s time to discuss authorship as it relates to these data and this
manuscript. You have the right to information about the policies and practices
of your advisor, the program, and the institution. And you have the
responsibility to follow these policies and uphold the highest standards of
scientific integrity and accountability in determining authorship and credit
for all your research and publications. Kathy Barker offers this advice in “Accountability and Authorship” (in Science Next
Wave, an on-line publication of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science): “The best situation for students and postdocs is to be
affiliated with an institution and lab that promotes accountability and
workplace ethics.” We in GSAS couldn’t agree more.
References
Barker, K. (2002). Accountability and authorship, http://nextwave.science.org/cgi/content/full/2002/11/06/14
Fine, M., & Kurdek, L. (1993). Reflections on
determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student
collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141-1147.
Fischer, B., & Zigmond, M. (1998). Scientific
publishing. Encyclopedia of Applied
Ethics, Vol. 4. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Society for Neuroscience. (1999). Responsible conduct
regarding scientific communication. The Journal of Neuroscience, 19(1),
iii-xvi.
| |
