Authorship
Dr. Messelman Killinger is a cell biologist at Big University
who has a policy about authorship that he discusses with each new
member who joins his lab. He states that only those who have made a
significant intellectual contribution to an experiment will be
included on any paper. He also states that he is the final
authority about what is defined as a significant intellectual
contribution, should a disagreement arise. He further states that
he will be included as last author on any paper that is the result
of research done in his lab.
David Tonkyn is a post-doc in Killenger's lab and is working to
characterize a novel organelle that has been identified in the
protozoan parasite Entamoeba histolytica. Based on biochemical
studies of the purified organelle, David suspects that it may be an
as yet unidentified mitochondrion in this organism.
Haruko Tomonaga, a technician in Killinger's lab, has worked
very closely with David on his biochemical studies related to this
organelle. She has done most of the trouble shooting and
optimization for the experimentation. She also developed a novel
method of isolating organelles from the organism.
Benson Zophar is a first year graduate student who is currently
doing a six-week rotation through Killenger's lab. Benson
participates in the final experiment of this project, which shows
that a protein normally targeted to mitochondria in other
eukaryotes is targeted to this novel organelle in Entamoeba. These
data suggest that the novel organelle may indeed be a
mitochondrion.
Killinger encourages David to submit the data for publication as
quickly as possible. David does the writing, gives the paper to
Haruko for review, and then presents the data at the lab meeting
the following week. Following the meeting, Killinger, David, Haruko
and Benson discuss authorship assignments for the paper. David
makes the point that since Haruko offered novel ideas to the
project and helped in trouble-shooting and in the review of the
paper, she should be included as second author. He further argues
that although Benson assisted on the last experiment of the
project, he did not contribute intellectually and therefore should
not be listed as an author. David states that Benson should be
included in the acknowledgements for his contributions to the
project. Finally, David states that Killinger should be included as
last author on the paper since the work was done in his lab and
supported by funds from his grant. All present are in agreement
with David's decision, and the paper is submitted.
Discussion Questions:
- Do you agree with the order of authorship that David proposed?
Why or why not?
- Is it ethical to include Haruko (the technician), but not to
include Benson (the graduate student) on the list of authors for
this paper?
- Does it matter that Benson was just rotating through the lab
and not (as yet) a regular member?
- What constitutes a significant intellectual contribution? Who
should decide?
-
Participant Commentary: Authorship
Participant's commentary on issues of assignment of authorship, mentor-student relationships, intellectual property and intellectual contribution, and the role of technicians vs. the role of graduate students.
-
Commentary: Authorship
Commentary on issues of assignment of authorship, mentor-student relationships, intellectual property and intellectual contribution, and the role of technicians vs. the role of graduate students.