{"id":3711,"date":"2012-09-21T10:09:20","date_gmt":"2012-09-21T10:09:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/wp\/2012\/09\/21\/determining-authorship-for-a-peer-reviewed-scientific-publication\/"},"modified":"2019-11-14T21:44:46","modified_gmt":"2019-11-14T21:44:46","slug":"determining-authorship-for-a-peer-reviewed-scientific-publication","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/2012\/09\/21\/determining-authorship-for-a-peer-reviewed-scientific-publication\/","title":{"rendered":"Determining authorship for a peer-reviewed scientific publication"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Chris Buddle<\/strong>
\n__________________________________<\/p>\n

Authorship on written work should never be taken lightly.\u00a0 Authorship implies ownership and responsibility for the ideas and content portrayed as the written word<\/strong>.\u00a0 In science, our currency is the written word, in the form of peer-reviewed articles submitted and published in scientific journals, and multi-authored works are the norm (sometimes to ridiculous degrees!). \u00a0 Being an author on a paper is critically important for success in academia: the number of publications on your CV can get you job interviews, scholarships, and often leads to increased research funding.\u00a0 Scientists are often judged by publication metrics, and although we may not like this system, it remains prevalent.\u00a0 With this context I pose the following question: What is the process by which an individual is granted the privilege of being an author on a peer-reviewed journal article?\u00a0<\/strong> This blog post will provide an objective method to determine authorship for a publication, and by sharing it, I hope it helps bring some clarity to the issue.<\/p>\n

(Note<\/em>: as a biologist, I am drawing from my experiences publishing in the fields of ecology and entomology, and in my role as the Editor-in-Chief for a scientific journal, The Canadian Entomologist<\/em> <\/a>– the ideas presented below may not be transferable to other fields of study).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A paper that resulted from a graduate class; should all these individuals be authors on this paper? (yes, of course!)<\/p>\n

The method outlined below starts by thinking about five main stages in the publication process, and there are individuals associated with each stage:<\/p>\n

1. Research concept, framework, and question<\/strong>:\u00a0 The research process leading to a publication has a conceptual backbone \u2013 it is the overarching research framework.\u00a0 The background ideas and concepts that initiate the research that leads to a publication come from somewhere (\u2026and someone).\u00a0 Although the end product of research may be the publication, a good research question is at the start, and drives the entire process.\u00a0 Without a solid framework for research, and a clear question, the research will simply never be in a form suitable for publication. \u00a0 The person (or people) who developed the big-picture ideas, research framework, and research question are to be considered as authors on the final publication.\u00a0 In the University framework, this is often an academic who has developed a laboratory and research program around a thematic area of study.<\/p>\n

2.\u00a0 Funding<\/strong>.\u00a0 Someone has to pay for research \u2013 whether it be a large, collaborative research grant that supports many graduate students, or whether it be a small grant from a local conservation agency.\u00a0 An individual scientist applied for money, and was able to support the research that leads to the publication.\u00a0 These monies could directly support the research (e.g., provide travel funds, purchase of equipment), the individual doing the research (e.g., pays the graduate student stipend, or technician), or the monies could offset the costs associated with the publication process itself (e.g., many journals charge authors to submit their work, also known as page charges).\u00a0 \u00a0 The individual(s) who pay for the research need to be considered as authors on the final publication resulting from the research.\u00a0 More often than not, this individual is the main \u201csupervisor\u201d of a research laboratory, but could also be important collaborators on grant applications, often from other Universities or Institutions.<\/p>\n

3. Research design and data collection<\/strong>:\u00a0 Once the overall research question is in place, and funding secured, the actual research must be designed and executed.\u00a0 These are placed together under one heading because it is difficult to separate the two, nor should they be separated.\u00a0 You cannot design a project without attention to how data are collected, nor can you collect data without a clear design.\u00a0 In a typical University environment, Master\u2019s and PhD students are intimately associated with this part of the research equation, and spend a very significant portion of their time in design and data collection mode.\u00a0 Without a doubt, the individual(s) who \u201cdesign and do\u201d the research must be considered as authors.<\/p>\n

4.\u00a0 Data analyses, and manuscript preparation<\/strong>:\u00a0 The next step in the process is taking the data, crunching the numbers, preparing figures and tables, and writing a first draft of the manuscript.\u00a0 This is a very important step in the process, as this is the stage where the research gets transformed into a cohesive form.\u00a0 In a typical University laboratory, this is often done by Master\u2019s students, PhD students, or post-docs, and the product of this stage is often (part of) a graduate student\u2019s thesis. \u00a0 However, it is also quite likely that a research associate, technician, or Honour\u2019s student be involved at this stage, or that this stage is done by multiple individuals.\u00a0 For example, data management and analyses may be done by a research technician whereas the head researcher does the bulk of the synthetic writing.\u00a0 Regardless, one or many individuals may be involved in this stage of the publication process, and all of these people must be considered as authors on the final product.<\/p>\n

5. Editing, manuscript submission, and the post-submission process<\/strong>: The aforementioned stage is certainly not the final stage.\u00a0 A great deal of time and effort goes into the editing process, and quite often the editing and re-writing of manuscripts is done by different individuals than those who wrote the first draft.\u00a0 Important collaborators and colleagues may be asked to read and edit the first draft and\/or other students within a laboratory may work to fine-tune a manuscript.\u00a0 Most likely, the supervisor of a graduate students invests a lot of time and energy at this stage, and works to get the manuscript in a form that is ready to be submitted to a scientific journal. \u00a0 The submission process itself can also be difficult and daunting \u2013 papers must be formatted to fit the style requirements for specific journals, and the on-line submission process can take a long time.\u00a0 After the manuscript has been submitted and reviewed by peers, it will most likely return to authors with requests for revisions.\u00a0 These revisions can be lengthy, difficult, and require significant input (perhaps from many individuals). \u00a0 For all these reasons, this fifth stage of the publication process cannot be undervalued, and the individual(s) associated with editing, submitting and dealing with revisions must be considered as authors.<\/p>\n

Those five categories help define the main stages that lead to a scientific publication, and there are individuals associated with each stage.\u00a0 Here\u2019s the formula to consider adopting when considering which individuals should be authors on the final product:\u00a0 if an individual contributed significantly to three or more of the above stages, they should be an author on the final paper<\/strong>.\u00a0 Here\u2019s an example: in a \u2018typical\u2019 research laboratory, the supervisor likely has a big-picture research question that s\/he is working on (Stage 1<\/strong>) and has secured funding to complete that project (Stage 2<\/strong>).\u00a0 A Master\u2019s student, working with this supervisor, will work on the design and collect the data (Stage 3<\/strong>), and as they prepare their thesis, will do the bulk of the data analysis and write the first draft of the paper (Stage 4<\/strong>).\u00a0 In most cases, the editing and manuscript submission process is shared by the supervisor and the student, and both individuals are likely involved with the revisions of the manuscript after it has been peer-reviewed (Stage 5<\/strong>).\u00a0 In this case, both individuals clearly contributed to at least three of five categories, and the paper should be authored by both individuals.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A classic example of a paper with a graduate student and supervisor as co-authors.<\/p>\n

What about the research assistant that helped collect data? \u2013 since they only contributed to Stage 3, they are not considered as an author.\u00a0 The same is true of a collaborator at a different University who may have helped secure the funding (Stage 2), but did not help with the process in any other way \u2013 they do not qualify as authors on this work. \u00a0 It is quite possible that a post-doc in a laboratory contributes to multiple stages, even on a single Master\u2019s project. For example, the post-doc may have helped secure the funding, assisted significantly with data analysis, and helped to edit the final paper \u2013 this entitles them to authorship.<\/p>\n

This entire method may be considered too rigid<\/strong>, and cannot really be implemented given the complexities of the research process, and given personalities and politics associated with the research process. Furthermore, many researchers may include their friends on publications, in hopes that the favour will be returned so both individuals increase their publication numbers.\u00a0 \u00a0 I do not think this is ethical, and overall, if an individual did not contribute to the research process in a significant way, they should not be authors.\u00a0 The method outlined above provides one way to help determine how this \u2018significant way\u2019 can be determined objectively.\u00a0 The process is certainly not without fault, nor will it work in all circumstances, but perhaps it will help to define roles and help to consider seriously who should be considered as authors on papers.<\/p>\n

I can also admit that I have not always contributed to \u201c3 of 5 stages\u201d on all the paper for which I am an author, so you can call me a hypocrite.\u00a0 That\u2019s OK, (I\u2019ve been called worse), and I reiterate that the process outlined above is context-dependent, and simply provides a framework, or guide, for thinking about this important issue in science.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I am certainly not alone in this discussion, nor with this concept \u2013 Paul Friedman wrote about this (in A New Standard for Authorship<\/strong><\/a>) and the method in analogous to the one outlined above (although with more categories). \u00a0Some journals also specify their expectations for authorship. \u00a0As an example, in its instructions to authors<\/a>, PNAS states that \u2018Authorship\u00a0should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work\u2019<\/strong>, and request that contributions be spelled out clearly. \u00a0This is a good idea, and forces people to think about the issue.<\/p>\n

I\u2019ll finish with two more important points:\u00a0 First, determining authorship, and thinking about authorship, must be a transparent and clear process.\u00a0 Graduate students must not be surprised when their supervisor states that some other researcher will be an author on their work \u2013 this should have been clear from the start.\u00a0 A discussion about authorship must occur early in the research process.\u00a0 Full stop.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Second, another key question is the order of authors<\/strong>.\u00a0 For example, when is the student\u2019s name first on a publication, and the supervisor second?\u00a0 What\u2019s the convention for your field of study? Who should be second author when there are four or five co-authors?\u00a0 This is a complicated question and, you guessed it, one that will be addressed in a future blog post!<\/p>\n

Please share your thoughts\u2026 how does your laboratory deal with the question of authorship on scientific papers?<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Chris Buddle __________________________________ Authorship on written work should never be taken lightly.\u00a0 Authorship implies ownership and responsibility for the ideas and content portrayed as the written word.\u00a0 In science, our currency is the written word, in the form of peer-reviewed articles submitted and published in scientific journals, and multi-authored works are the norm (sometimes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[473,513,544],"tags":[810,711,811,548],"class_list":["post-3711","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog-fr","category-research-fr","category-the-canadian-entomologist-journal-fr","tag-authorship-fr","tag-chris-buddle-fr","tag-journal-articles-fr","tag-publications-fr"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","views":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3711","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3711"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3711\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5531,"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3711\/revisions\/5531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3711"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3711"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esc-sec.ca\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3711"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}