Breadcrumbs
- Home
- Research staff
- Research staff blog
- Research staff and joint publications
Research staff and joint publications
27 November 2009
By Victoria Sheppard
As research staff, do you feel that your contribution to publications is always adequately reflected in the manner in which authors are named?
Clearly there are different conventions in different academic fields, and the protocol for naming and ordering authors is often driven by journal policy (as with the Vancouver guidelines for medical journals). Some universities also reference joint authorship in their code of practice, and suggest that authorship and naming policy should be agreed by all involved in a research project at the outset.
What are your experiences of joint authorship and what do you think is the best way of ensuring that authors’ contributions are fairly represented?
George Whale27 November 2009 at 12:53 PM
permalinkreport this comment
This reminds me of those arguments amongst Hollywood co-stars over who should get top-billing on advertising posters, etc. But of course research has its prima donnas too, and I agree that it is best to resolve the issue right at the outset, in order to avoid simmering resentments later on. With regard to the ordering of co-authors' names, I believe that if one person has clearly made the greatest contribution to the work, then he/she should be entitled to precedence, regardless of seniority. Otherwise, my recommendation would be to toss a coin to decide precedence for the first co-authored publication, and thereafter to alternate. I also believe that it is very important - more than a matter of simple courtesy - to acknowledge those who have contributed in other ways, e.g., by providing critical feedback or advice, technical or administrative support, design or editing expertise, etc. It only takes a few lines in a book preface, or at the end of a journal paper, and can make all the difference to those who have helped.
George Whale27 November 2009 at 09:17 PM
permalinkreport this comment
P.S. Victoria, I think this is an important issue you've raised.
Tennie Videler02 December 2009 at 01:00 PM
permalinkreport this comment
Hi Victoria, I'd be very interested to hear your findings. Authorship is a difficult one- researchers careers depend on it to such a large extend, yet the rules on (first) authorship can be very opaque and as you say, different in different disciplines. I am not convinced about setting authorship in stone at the beginning of a project as no one knows what the outcomes are going to be and which results will end up in a paper. It is often really hard to judge the comparative input people have made (and naturally, your own hours and intellectual input weigh more in your mind than other people's). So maybe agreeing who will have the final say might help. I think no amount of regulation will ever put a stop to the politics that go on with regard to authorship and people feeling disgruntled about it. But I do think it is a good step forward if universities enshrine rules in their codes of practices (and researchers know about them). It would be even better if those codes of practices were the same across institutions.
Nick Dickens02 December 2009 at 03:49 PM
permalinkreport this comment
In my experience the journals have quite clear policies and there are official policies within many institutions, however, it often boils down to your PI and how controlling they are. I personally hate having to put people on for the sake of it, but some groups have a policy of 'you must include everyone in the group' even when they clearly have made no contribution to the paper. As long as the person with the most intellectual input goes first and the 'big boss' gets the last place, it doesn't really matter where everyone else goes. Fighting over 4th of 10 authors is verging on the farcical. When it boils down to it, if you did the research then you can explain your contribution (in a job interview or invited talk, etc) if not then you shouldn't be on there. A lot of biomedical journals now have author contribution sections on them, which will help - but closer examination reveals that many of these are filled with generic catch-all statements that don't really sort out the problem... Joint authorship is much trickier and often more about politics than the research...but George's point about being upfront it spot on. It is important to discuss authorship openly and include everyone on the paper. That way people can say immediately if they feel they are being treated unfairly. Excellent topic VIctoria.