Although there are rules of authorship, the ultimate rule is that the person in control of the paper can include anyone who they think was vital. That is the point of these rules. We often use a code where if someone participated in a given number of components of the article are given authorship (writing, analysis, data collection for example). However, this code is is held more seriously in ecology. Within the clinical sciences you will often see a long list of authors, one may be the technician who ran the GCMS. I have also observed a person included into a paper because they provided vital input to the study, but did not participate in the writing, funding, data collection. They only discussed the analysis and thought of a better way to examine the data. Funders are often included by some to stroke that person and ensure future funding. Advisors are sometimes included despite no involvement. I have one friend who got "top scientist in the field" to co-author with him to ensure credibility when submitting to "top journal." Top scientist played no role in the study outside of reading the article and saying "sure throw me on!"
Generally, we should try to follow the code, but if you are the lead and feel sincerely that someone deserves authorship and was vital to the study, then it is your right to include them. This has a responsibility involved consistency in that you don't add buddies or every person in the lab. Lets face it, the janitor may have been vital, but they did not really play a role. I believe the purpose of the code is to help us remain objective when we are questioning whether or not to include or exclude someone, most of the time we know without much consideration. But as they say in pirates of the carribean (and frankly, sometimes science runs more like a pirate fleet than anything else) "they aren't really rules so much as guidelines." On Wed, August 22, 2007 4:59 am, William Silvert wrote: > Since I am a native English speaker in Portugal I do an awful lot of > rewriting for my colleagues here, but never expect more than an > acknowledgement at the end of the paper. However if the rewriter > contributes > critical comments and ideas, co-authorship is not out of the question. > Still, if all I did was translate a Portuguese paper into English I would > not expect to be an author. On the other hand, if someone tells me what > they > did and I shape that into a coherent paper, maybe I should qualify (since > I > am a theoretical ecologist, this often means that I add interpretations > and > concepts that were not evident in the raw data). > > The issue of how much a co-author needs to contribute is never clear. > There > should be some contribution, but I have on occasion been pleasantly > surprised that someone thought a minor contribution on my part was > significant enough to earn co-authorship. A more important question, which > has come up before on the list, is whether someone whose role was simply > getting the funding or heading the laboratory deserves author credit. > > The first author is generally the person who made the greatest > contribution, > but this is not necessarily the case. When I write a paper with a junior > scientist I usually put his/her name first since it is more important to > someone who is just beginning their career. Still, the first author should > be the one who can best address questions about the paper. > > Which leads to an amusing anecdote. I wrote a series of three papers with > a > very famous colleague, but since I did most of the work my name came > first. > When we were readying the third paper for submission he commented that he > was not used to being a junior author and would I mind if he put his name > first, even though it was mostly my work. I didn't mind, so he appeared as > senior author. But unlike the previous two papers, this one was very > controversial and came under severe attack. He panicked and frantically > came > to see me to make sure that the work was OK. He never fully understood > what > the issues were (they involved some pretty abstruse theoretical arguments) > and always regretted putting his name where he shouldn't (but the paper > has > stood the test of time and I still think it is one of my best!). > > Bill Silvert > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Alicere Bachman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 5:37 PM > Subject: writing a paper and authorship > > >> One of my friends wants me to post the following question and see what >> kind of opinions you may have: >> >> My friend is teaching in an univeristy. A professor in her department >> did some interesting work on biodiversity but the professor cannot write >> well enough to put the work into a professional paper. The professor >> approached her asking her to write the paper for him and her to be the >> second author, although she does not have anything to do with the >> research >> work. >> >> 1. Is this a good collaboration? If it is, many people can ask others >> to >> write papers for them and are still listed as the first authors. >> >> 2. Is it ethical? (my friend did not do the research; maybe she should >> not be a co-author on something she did not do?) >> >> 3. Should the person writing the paper be the first author? >> >> Alicere > Malcolm L. McCallum Assistant Professor of Biology Editor Herpetological Conservationa and Biology [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
