The Co-Authorship Controversy
Part 1
Peggy Platt, a graduate student in the biochemistry
department at State University (SU), had completed her third
year and had established a dissertation committee consisting of
SU faculty. Following one of her data sessions, Dr. Michael
McClair, a member of her dissertation committee, suggested some
experiments that could be included to strengthen her project.
McClair suggested that Platt should perform these studies at
the institution of his collaborator, Dr. Gary Gleeson, because
Gleeson's facilities were already set up for these experiments.
Platt felt that this would be a beneficial experience for her
and took the idea to her adviser.
Dr. Jenny Jones, Platt's adviser, was not thrilled with this
idea, especially since Gleeson's institution was located in
England. Jones did not discuss her objections to the trip with
Platt directly, but she expressed her reservations in subtle
ways. However, recognizing that the experiments would be
beneficial, Jones allowed Platt to go. Jones warned Platt not
to share too much of her unpublished data with Gleeson's group
because they were doing similar studies on a parallel system.
Although her work had not been published, Platt had presented
her data and techniques at regional and national meetings.
Platt mentioned her adviser's concerns to McClair, and both he
and Gleeson assured her that her visit was a collaboration and
that she should definitely be willing to share her research.
Platt was content with McClair's response on the matter and
went to England to perform her studies.
Back to Top
Discussion Questions
- Was it appropriate for McClair to suggest that Platt go
to a laboratory where he knew similar work was being
done?
- What issues arise from McClair and Gleeson telling Platt
that she was expected to share her data despite the fact that
they knew Jones had advised otherwise?
- Has Platt done anything that could lead to a potential
conflict?
Part 2
While conducting her studies at Gleeson's research
institution, Platt also helped members of that lab do
preliminary experiments on their system. These experiments
verified that they needed to do some studies similar to the
unpublished studies Platt had completed at SU. She helped them
set up the instrumentation necessary for doing these studies
and made sure that the instruments were working as
expected.
Platt completed her work during her scheduled six-week stay
in England and returned to the United States. A couple of
months after returning to SU, Platt received a preprint of a
paper from Gleeson's lab, which reported their findings on the
studies they had begun while she was there. Platt was neither
asked for input on writing the article, nor was she included as
a co-author. Instead, the acknowledgments mentioned Platt and
her "helpful discussions."
Platt felt that her contribution in establishing a need for
the studies and providing a means of achieving successful
results entitled her to co-authorship. In fact, the studies
performed in Gleeson's lab utilized a protocol that Platt had
established as part of her dissertation project. Furthermore,
she had been assured that her relationship with Gleeson's lab
was to be a collaboration.
Discussion Questions
- What are the criteria for being included as a co-author
on a publication? Did Platt's contributions fulfill these
criteria? Does the fact that Platt had presented her data and
techniques at scientific meetings come into play when
deciding whether or not Platt has earned authorship?
- What constitutes a collaboration? Is co-authorship
inherent in a collaboration? What are the reasonable
expectations of each member of a collaboration?
- What was Platt's role in the development of this dilemma?
What could she have done to prevent this situation from
arising?
Part 3
When questioned by Platt, Gleeson had several reasons for
excluding Platt's name on the paper. First, Gleeson stated that
Platt did not do the experiments and therefore did not deserve
to be included. Furthermore, Gleeson asserted that they had
planned to conduct the studies prior to Platt's arrival.
Finally, it was revealed that a post-doc in Gleeson's lab was
applying for jobs; having Platt as a co-author on this piece
would detract from his worth.
Back to Top
Discussion Questions
- Which of Gleeson's arguments are valid reasons for
excluding a researcher as a co-author?
Part 4
After receiving Gleeson's response, Platt took her case to
McClair. Despite his initial role in arranging this
collaboration, McClair denied any responsibility at this point.
He claimed that this conflict was a matter between Platt and
Gleeson. When Platt approached her adviser, Jones refused to
pursue the issue because she felt it would make her laboratory
look bad. Platt was not satisfied with her adviser's response,
but quickly became aware that pushing the issue would only
result in a very difficult working situation.
Discussion Questions
- Looking at the entire situation, what role was played by
lack of communication?
Back to Top
-
Participant Commentary: The Co-Authorship Controversy
Participant's commentary on issues of authorship, credit, proper procedures for publishing and collaboration specifically targeted to post-doc fellows, junior faculty and supervisors.
-
Commentary: The Co-Authorship Controversy
Michael Pritchard's commentary on the issues of authorship, credit, proper procedures for publishing and collaboration specifically targeted to post-doc fellows, junior faculty and supervisors.