Me First!The system of scientific authorship is in crisis. Two new rules could help make things right.
This spring, The Scientist received a letter signed by Fertility and Sterility editor Alan DeCherney, asking to retract comments he made three months earlier, in which he accused authors of an F&S paper of plagiarism. The authors of the 2005 paper, on mitochondrial DNA in ovarian failure, are still facing allegations from a scientist who claims they stole his research and left him off the author list. Authorship disputes are a fairly regular occurrence in science, a natural offshoot of the oppressive demands of a "publish or perish" system. So much can be at stake: If a postdoc or young professor receives that all-important top billing of first author, they are more likely to earn tenure, or a lifetime-guaranteed career. (See "Does Tenure Need to Change?") There are so many problems with the current system of scientific authorship, it's hard to know where to start looking for solutions. Physicians and professors are offered authorship of virtually or totally completed papers by companies whose medical writers and scientists have completed the bulk, or all, of the work. This past January, a study in PLoS Medicine revealed that two-thirds of industry-initiated randomized trials contained evidence of ghost authorship. 1 All too frequently, scientists allege that some senior faculty claim senior authorship on every paper that originates in their labs, even if they were only marginally involved.ᅠAnd, authors don't know what each other is doing: Another January study in the Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) found that more than two-thirds of 919 corresponding authors disagreed with their coauthors over contributions to the paper. 2 According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authors must offer "substantial" contributions to the design or data, draft or revise the manuscript, and give final approval of the finished version. Anyone who does not meet these criteria, the ICMJE says, must be listed as a contributor in the acknowledgements section. These rules are simple, straightforward, but not followed: In the CMAJ report, only 3 of 10 noncorresponding authors interviewed met all the ICMJE criteria for authorship. Clearly, the safeguards we currently have to ensure proper authorship are not working. It's not enough to ask authors to take responsibility for authorship; journal editors and institutions must be accountable, as well. I propose two new rules to help restore fairness in scientific authorship. Rule #1. Journals must be ready, willing, and able to check whether a submitted paper has been published elsewhere. The technology to do this already exists: In universities across the country, professors routinely plug student papers into programs such as Turnitin, which spit out similarities to other online papers. The program would have to be more sophisticated to detect whether papers were published in different languages, but you can spot many things even without that added level. In the past three years, I've received approximately a dozen calls from scientists claiming a published paper is based on a lecture they gave that one of the study authors attended. Both lecture and paper were in English. Obviously, coauthors should also ensure the work is original before signing off on it, and perhaps peer reviewers should do so as well (although I hesitate to recommend this last point, given how much time many peer reviewers already spend on manuscripts). Rule #2. Universities need to do a better job of preventing authorship disputes in the first place, and accepting responsibility when these disputes occur. Many institutions provide little or no training in publication ethics, so I propose that universities teach every new research hire about authorship and other aspects of ethical scholarship. In addition, why not send out a monthly e-mail to researchers that discusses a recent case of disputed authorship and lessons they can take from the example? In this way, we can all learn from disputes such as the one over the F&S paper - not just lament them, feel relieved that we're not involved, and move on.
Glenn McGee is the director of the Alden March Bioethics Institute at Albany Medical College, where he holds the John A. Balint Endowed Chair in Medical Ethics. 1. P.C. Gøtzsche et al., "Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomized trials," PLoS Med, 4:e19, 2007.
2. V. Ilakovac et al., "Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions," CMAJ, 176:41, 2007.
Advertisement
Rate this article
Rule #1: Journal? by Wendell Sun [Comment posted 2007-09-13 16:01:58] Let me give you a real example, from which you may know why companies pay physicians and professors to be the authors.
One of my colleagues has just completed an animal model development study using materials from several companies including our own company. The manuscript was submitted to a medical journal and reviewd. No major issue or question was raised. But my poor colleague had been waiting for the decision for 4 months AFTER the completion of the review. Finally, she was told that the paper would not be accepted because there was no academic co-author. Since when, the authorship is no longer associated with who does the hard work? From McGee again: citation by Glenn McGee [Comment posted 2007-09-11 14:05:31] Sorry, I should have provided a citation to the Science piece:
online: LINK">LINK Citation: Science > Science Careers > Career Development > Previous Issues > 2001 > 2001-03-30 > McGee Response from Glenn McGee by Glenn McGee [Comment posted 2007-09-11 14:03:33] The suggestion of legislation on publication has, of course, one key flaw, which is that it would, in the U.S. at least, clearly violate the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. But I am in sympathy with the point: asking universities to solve the problem won't work without external pressure. But why can't that pressure come from professional societies. And remember, part of my argument is that it will and should come from inspection of authors' work by editors to determine whether it has been published elsewhere.
As to the suggestion that the complexity of some fields requires a different way of thinking, I agree and suggest you take a look at my paper on the subject for Science entitled "the ethics of authorship: does it take a village to write a paper" addressing this issue. Maybe you'll think I'm nuts but I have thought about that issue and I think there is a solution. authorship rules? by anonymus again [Comment posted 2007-09-10 13:27:18] Drawing simple authorship rules is easy when a paper requires a single field of expertise and can be understood by all authors.
A lot of papers require that people from different fields come together, not all authors will understand all the aspects of the paper, even if they devised part of the strategy, how can rules deal with that? Dispute arise because of unreasonable demands needing to be met in order to obtain a higher degree, a grant or a position. Until we consider that aspect, nothing will change (and asking for only the 5 most relevant publications of a soon to be graduated PhD student for a post-doctoral grant application is not a step in the right direction!). You have got to be kidding by John Toradze [Comment posted 2007-09-10 12:42:59] You actually suggest that universities will ever do anything. You are that naive? This is a serious suggestion?
The universities ARE the problem! They are the problem because they are fed huge sums of money (the overhead) by the grant system. Consequently, they are constitutionally incapable of ever doing anything about it. The only way to fix things is by legislation that specifies, as patent law does, what constitutes authorship in academic publications. |
Register for FREE Online Access
Subscribe to the Magazine