The who and how of authorship.
by David M. Post (with input from many!)
Multiple-author papers are a reality
of life in many research labs; however, the criteria
for determine authorship too often follows unwritten
and nebulous rules. This essay on authorship derives
from my experiences and discussions as a graduate
student at UW-Madison and Cornell University, and
as a postdoctoral fellow at the National Center for
Ecological Synthesis and Analysis. Many have contributed
ideas and criteria to this guide.
Many disputes can be avoided by a clear
common understanding of standards for authorship (especially
in multi-disciplinary groups). Authorship should be
discussed between researchers at an early stage in
any project and renegotiated when necessary. Where
possible, there should be agreement on which papers
will be written jointly (and who will be first author
on each paper), and which will be single authored.
Early drafts of papers should include authorship to
help resolve any future disputes.
I. Who should be an Author?
In general, it is agreed that authorship
should be reserved for those who have made significant
intellectual contribution to the research; however,
what is meant by significant contribution, may vary
widely. The criteria listed below represents my personal
view based on many years of work within and around
large multi-disciplinary groups and collaborative
labs.
1) If you find yourself saying "I
could not have produced this paper without Dr. X or
graduate student Y" because they brought to the project
a unique and indispensable skill, perspective,
or data set then they should be a coauthor. If many
other people could have provided the same skill, perspective,
or data then they may not necessarily merit being
an author. If their role was not unique then see
point 2.
2) If a person had a (significant)
role in three of the five following criteria they
should be a coauthor. These criteria fit an empirical
project best, but are generally applicable for theoretical
research. (Modified from a source of unknown origin)
a)
Formulating the initial idea. This can be very
hard to judge so it is best to be generous with these
criteria.
b)
Planning/facilitating the research. May include
figuring out how to collect data, outlining a modeling
approach, writing/getting grants to fund the work,
providing key equipment, etc.
c)
Doing the research. Includes collecting data,
coding a model, or working through tricky math.
d)
Analyzing the data. May include database manipulations,
statistical and graphical analysis, or providing new
insights that derive from the results.
e)
Writing and publishing the results. This could
include writing some section(s) of the manuscript,
providing extensive editorial comments, etc.
3) When in doubt, be generous! There
are very few examples of careers being destroyed by
adding a coauthor. There are, however, many examples
of important relationships being destroyed by not
including someone as an author. Do not let your ego
get in the way.
On the other
hand, recognize that adding authors who have not substantially
contributed to a paper will devaluate the role of
authors who have made substantial contributions.
There is no easy decision once a potential author
falls under this criterion.
II. Implications of Authorship
Here are just a few thoughts on the
implication and connotation of different author structures.
1) Single author – A single
authored paper says that you did all the essential
work, although others may have contributed by editing,
make suggestions on research, providing labor and
supplemental data, etc.
2) Two authors – A paper
with two authors suggests a shared enterprise. It
is often assumed that the second author did almost
as much work as the first author, but that the first
author did much or most of the writing.
3) Three or more authors
– Multiple authored papers are open to many interpretations.
Often it is assumed that the second author contributed
more than the 3rd through nth
authors, but this is not necessarily true. First
authors may be project leaders, a collaborator on
equal footing with other authors, or students drawing
upon the expertise and data of others to answer broad
questions or to produce a more complete story. The
3rd through nth authors may
have made very large contributions or may have contributed
very little; it is always hard to tell.
III. Author order
Authorship order can also become a sticky
point, and a point of stress among collaborators.
Here are a few thoughts:
1)
The person who has made the major contribution to
the paper and has taken the lead in writing the paper
should be the first author.
2)
Decisions about authorship and the order of authors
should be made by the first author in consultation
with other authors.
3)
Individuals who have made a major contribution to
analysis or writing (i.e., more than just commenting
on successive drafts) should follow the first author
immediately. Where there is a clear difference
in the size of the contribution, this should be reflected
in the order of these authors. However...
4)
Often there is no clear difference in the size of
contributions, or contributions are sufficiently different
in kind that comparisons are impossible. In those
cases, consider listing in alphabetical order of their
surnames all authors who fulfill the criteria for
authorship. Remember, once a paper is in the et
al. stage, it really does not matter much where
you are in the author list.
Regardless of author order, each coauthor
should have a chance to critically review successive
drafts of the paper and should approve the final version.
Furthermore, each coauthor should be able to defend
the paper as a whole, although not necessarily all
the technical details.
IV. The student-mentor relationship
and authorship
A word of advice to students early in
their graduate career - above all, follow any criteria
your advisor might have (e.g., some advisors attach
their name to all papers derived from their lab group).
Otherwise, a good advisor will generally have an important
role in at least three of these criteria. They usually
help you formulate or refine your ideas, discuss how
to test an idea or collect data, provide funds and
equipment that allow you to conduct your research,
and help you with analysis and publication. Often,
the only thing they do not have a role in is the data
collection. That means students early in their career
should typically include their advisor as a coauthor,
while students later in their career may publish a
paper or two without their advisor. If your advisor
feels he or she has not had significant input or you
have been particularly independent, let them make
the decision to remove their name from the manuscript.
This also puts the onus on mentors to
carefully weigh their role in papers produced by members
of their lab. Mentors should remove their name from
papers that they have made little contribution to
in order to maintain the intellectual integrity of
authorship. Mentors should also recognize and acknowledge
in an appropriate way the contribution of lab members
to synthetic paper they write.
