4

Clarification: The proposed duplicate is about a different situation from what I'm describing. In that situation, someone contributed by assisting tangibly with the write-up, after not having contributed to the research. In this case, someone is claiming co-authorship, carte blanche, even for papers where he has had no tangible contribution beyond simple proofreading that could be done by someone outside our field.

Unlike the other question, here, the person claiming co-authorship is not offering to work in exchange for getting credit as a co-author.

Originally, he stated he expected to be listed as a co-author regardless of whether he contributes in any way. Subsequently, he back-pedaled slightly, feeling that perhaps his demands had been too extreme, so he provided the rationalization that he would be proofreading the manuscript. These services are neither required nor desired by the younger authors. He has been installed as an intermediate, and is termed our "immediate superior." As such, he has the right to view the paper and, whether we want it or not, he can claim he proofread it and thus deserves authorship. He doesn't want to deny his boss of a co-authorship opportunity, and so he is actually demanding two tag-along co-authorships -- one for himself and one for his boss. So the question is: how many levels up the chain of command is one expected to offer free co-authorship out of professional courtesy? I am used to giving one, listed in last position, to the person who is recognized as having created the opportunity for the other author(s), and the opportunity creation is considered the contribution resulting in being included as a co-author.

My previous practice was that anyone farther removed from that should not be entitled to a co-authorship, which I saw as reserved for actual contributions.

This question is a reality check. I'm not asking what to do about the situation, I'm just asking whether the extension to an additional level of co-authorship as professional courtesy is standard, acceptable practice.

--------- Original question below ---------

We are a very small group that received a research grant approximately three years ago. For roughly the first year and a half no relevant paper was generated. I joined about a year ago and published the first paper aligned with our grant and I have a few more manuscripts in review so I've been somewhat productive. The other two postdocs (one hired a year before me and the other a couple of months after me) haven't published any relevant work and don't have anything relevant in the immediate timeline and so there is concern that our grant may be in danger of being terminated.

To address this concern, the group director hired someone from a lab who agreed to visit on a part-time basis to lead the research effort since we are actually part of a teaching institution with little mandate or infrastructure for research. Because I actually have a steady stream of submissions in the pipeline and am actually generating output -- and possibly because he is seeking to build his resume -- he wanted to be included in my submissions even if he didn't contribute in any way. His argument was that:

As a rule...you should add XXX (as the director of YYY) and myself (as Scientific Advisor and your supervisor) as co-authors on all your papers. The feedback and review on the paper (as proofreader or otherwise) and the comments provided constitute enough of a scientific contribution to warrant authorship, not to mention quality control, accurate acknowledgment of the work & grants, proper framing of the story, and relevant missing citations.

I tend to be fairly nice about including folks in my manuscripts: I've included folks either because (1) they've earned it (by making some substantive contribution) or (2) I felt generous and wanted to give them some exposure. What I feel a bit queasy about is when someone demands authorship for what amounts to non-scientific help, such as proofreading, quality control, etc. Sure, those things can be substantial but they can also be negligible. My experience has been that those sort of help would happen in an exchange sort of way ("I'll proof your paper if you'll proof mine."). I'm good with adding on the funding author as last author -- as is the convention in my discipline -- but, adding an author who doesn't contribute any substance yet feels entitled, is a bit difficult...not to mention possibly unethical.

Any thoughts on this?

aparente001
  • 38,999
  • 8
  • 65
  • 153
Silly Postdoc
  • 41
  • 2
  • It would be helpful if you edit this to provide a more specific question. Just asking whether proofreading is enough for authorship seems to be answered already. Perhaps you can ask a specific question about potential courses of action. – cactus_pardner Apr 19 '18 at 01:09
  • 3
    I understand what's bothering you, what's making you feel uncomfortable, but I don't know what you're asking. Perhaps: "Is it okay to assert oneself and say no to co-authorship in the following situation" -- note, "any thoughts on this" isn't on topic here because it's so vague. But I think your question can be made to be on topic. – aparente001 Apr 19 '18 at 01:22
  • Oops, I just read the question cactus_pardner cited. Great find. Postdoc, if that answers your question, I'd encourage you to delete this; if that doesn't answer your question, I hope you'll clarify how your question is different. – aparente001 Apr 19 '18 at 01:25
  • Discuss with your team leader, maybe a mediator (if your university/institute has something like that). If you can't find a solution together with them, your options boil down to grind your teeth while putting him as author, or not publish the paper at all (at least not in this form and not while part of this research group). The fact that you are the only one doing any publishing and that they need you to publish for funding might be a strong argument for your position, but full out going to war with your boss might not make the for the best work environment... – Dirk Apr 19 '18 at 10:26
  • @aparente001 - the link found by cactus_pardner does not answer my question. Please read my added comment: this is not about a quid pro quo--which is what the cited link is--but about an unethical demand disguised as one. Apparently, the disguise works quite well. I would ask that you unmarked this as a duplicate. – Silly Postdoc Apr 20 '18 at 02:59
  • Are you asking whether to object, or how? Or do you just want validation that this isn't the way things are supposed to work, so that you can grin and bear it? – aparente001 Apr 20 '18 at 03:33
  • @aparente001 - I am looking for validation: Is this acceptable? Is considered standard practice? As for whether or how to object, I expect that those would be situation dependent and would require a lot more context. – Silly Postdoc Apr 21 '18 at 04:59
  • Okay, Postdoc, thanks for explaining. I compare the two questions and gave it some thought. You've convinced me they're different. I've tried to make the difference super-clear since re-opening questions is sometimes a bit of an uphill climb. Please check my edits and make sure I haven't inadvertently distorted anything -- at the end of the day, the question still has to be about you and your situation. I will wait to vote to reopen until I've heard back from you about my edits. – aparente001 Apr 21 '18 at 13:35
  • 1
    Any “extending coauthorship as a professional courtesy” is unethical, at least according to the Vancouver Protocol. – JeffE Apr 21 '18 at 20:28
  • 3
    @JeffE - Thanks for bringing that up. Silly Postdoc, here's an answer that, if it were posted here, I would upvote: https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/29202/32436 – aparente001 Apr 21 '18 at 22:14
  • There is no "coauthorship as professional courtesy" (see duplicate question), and therefore neither for proofreading. – henning Apr 22 '18 at 07:47
  • Thanks for the edits, @aparente001 - they reflect my situation more closely than my original post. The posted answer you referenced from JeffE is closer but still somewhat different: the potential co-authors were invited initially but then subsequently faced removal. In my situation, they were not invited but demanded inclusion and, due to the power imbalance, difficult to exclude. If you would upvote to reopen, I'd appreciate it. – Silly Postdoc Apr 22 '18 at 21:18
  • @SillyPostdoc - Glad my edits were along the right lines. // You say that the difference with the duplicate I linked to yesterday is that your two co-authors were imposed on you without them ever having been invited. How does that change the answer? The comments here say a categorical no to co-authorship as professional courtesy. What does that leave unanswered or blurry for your situation? Help me understand. – aparente001 Apr 23 '18 at 01:32

1 Answers1

2

This seems like a clear cut transaction. They are offering their proofreading and editing services in exchange for co-authorship.

You are free to decline and you are free to accept. What you shouldn’t do is leave the person in an ambiguous state. If you wish to decline, then tell them explicitly no and don’t use their services.

If you aren’t able to make or convey this decision, then ask your supervisor to do so for you.

RoboKaren
  • 40,302
  • 9
  • 105
  • 180