Writing up your own work

Topic: Co-authoring

Case studies iconCase study: Who is an author?*

Read this story of authorship and answer the questions following.

Susan Jacobs, a PhD student from a small university, sets up, as part of finishing her dissertation, a six-month internship at a prestigious larger institution in order to learn a new molecular-biological technique. Ms Jacobs contacted the laboratory leader, Dr Marvin Frank, a world-renowned scientist, in the hope of developing new skills for her research and also to foster a relationship with Dr Frank, who is well connected in her field of biochemistry.

When Ms Jacobs comes to Dr Frank's laboratory, she is greeted warmly as a member of the team. Dr Frank, the graduate students, the postdoctoral fellows, and the technicians include Ms Jacobs in the weekly laboratory meetings, in which everyone participates in a free exchange of ideas about the ongoing projects in the laboratory, and which last for hours. In the meetings, Ms Jacobs finds some of the ideas helpful but others less so, and gives her point of view concerning the ongoing projects. In addition, she meets weekly, one on one, with Dr Frank, who provides significant scientific advice and one or two recommendations, which advance her work and move her in a slightly different direction. She discusses the results of her research with her mentor, Dr Melissa Seabrook, back at her home college, by weekly e-mails and occasional phone calls, interactions that also push ahead the project she started in Dr Seabrook's lab three years ago.

Ms Jacobs makes great progress during the six months she spends in Dr Frank's laboratory, and she writes a paper reflecting some important findings. Ms Jacobs puts herself down as first author, Dr Frank as second author, and Dr Seabrook as last author on the paper. At the end of the paper, she gives an acknowledgment to a technician who showed her several techniques and worked with her on a few experiments.

Ms Jacobs based her listing of authors on her understanding of the guidelines put forth by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which say that an author is someone who has made significant contributions to the conception and design, or to the acquisition of data, or to the analysis and interpretation of data; was involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and provided final approval of the version to be published. The guidelines, which are followed by approximately 500 medical journals, say that all three criteria must be met for authorship. Ms Jacobs would like to send her manuscript to a journal that follows ICMJE guidelines as soon as possible, because of what she feels is the importance of her results.

Ms Jacobs gives Dr Frank and Dr Seabrook a draft of her manuscript for review on a Friday, hoping for feedback by Monday. Dr Seabrook sends her comments by e-mail to Ms Jacobs. Dr Frank sends his comments back to Ms Jacobs and changes the authorship listing to include Ms Jacobs, the technician, two postdocs in his lab, two graduate students in the lab, himself, and Dr Seabrook. Dr Frank also gives a copy of the draft to all the members of his laboratory for discussion at the next meeting.

Ms Jacobs is shocked that Dr Frank has added the other laboratory members to the draft, explaining to him the ICMJE guidelines and maintaining that the major intellectual and physical work in preparing the paper was done by her and by Dr Seabrook and Dr Frank. Dr Frank is equally surprised by Ms Jacobs's feelings, responding that he and Ms Jacobs benefited from the input of all the other lab members. Dr Frank adds that a graduate student in the laboratory, Lisa Bain, is writing a short paper that is based on some very exciting preliminary findings, and that Ms Jacobs would be included in the list of authors. Dr Frank says that the results of Ms Bain's research would need further elaboration in the laboratory and that a second paper using the same data and additional studies would be more comprehensive, and that Ms. Jacobs would be included on the second one, too.

Dr Frank insists to Ms Jacobs that the contributions of all the laboratory members were sufficient to satisfy the ICJME guidelines for both papers, adding that the idea of a scientist acting as an independent entity is an outdated concept and that those who work around a scientist contribute significantly, helping him or her to function.

Ms Jacobs tells Dr Frank that she does not want to be included on Ms Bain's paper, feeling that she did not contribute adequately. Dr Seabrook, who follows ICMJE guidelines but was intimidated by Dr Frank's stature, advises Ms Jacobs not to rock the boat, to use Dr Frank's revisions and some of the changes suggested during the laboratory review and to submit the paper to the journal with the authorship he suggested.

Questions

  1. Why should Ms Jacobs and Dr Frank have discussed the laboratory’s approach to authorship issues when she started working in his laboratory?
  2. Why is the order of authorship and the listing of authors important in a research paper?
  3. What is the difference between an acknowledgment and a listing as an author?
  4. Although many journals subscribe to the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, many do not, and many researchers do not follow the practices that it recommends. What tends to happen, and how are ICMJE standards being challenged?
  5. Who among the authors takes responsibility for submitting the paper to a journal and following up with the editor and peer-review revisions?
  6. What might happen if someone is listed as an author on a paper for which he or she did not do any work?
  7. What might have been done to resolve Ms Jacobs’ ethical dilemma with Dr Frank about the authors on the paper?

 

Write your ideas here, then click below to get feedback.

Introduction to this topic

* This case is adapted from: Responsible conduct of research Course 3 Authorship and peer review (2003-4). Retrieved June 1, 2006, from http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/case/. The original case is adapted here with permission from "When in Rome: Conventions in assignment of authorship". In B. Schrag (Ed.). Research ethics: Cases and commentaries. Vol. 2, Sec. 1, Authorship. Bloomington, Indiana: Association for Practical and Professional Ethics. Prepared under NSF Grant No. 9241897. [February 1998].