I received quite a few responses to this (25) and, and everyone had some
good information regarding this topic. As it is a sensitive topic, I
won't be posting the summaries of the responses (except for two
anonymous excerpts), but I have tallied the responses. I've also
included several key points that I think are worth repeating and they
are after the tally.
Of those who responded with comments, all (23) said they believe
structure elucidation merits coauthorship, although one basically said
it merits coauthorship but it can be tough to get.
6 said that setting up the experiments should be enough for
co-authorship in a paper, 13 said that setting up experiments should
merit an acknowledgment.
Of those who mention the write-up, all (7) said that if you were a part
of the write-up of the relevant section, you should receive
coauthorship. Two of these expected a person to write-up a section of
the report if they wanted co-authorship.
Two had websites describing publication policies, one from KU:
http://www.msg.ku.edu/~msg/publications-policy.html
And one from PNAS:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/101/29/10495
And now, the main points that were communicated to me:
1. COMMUNICATE! This seems to be by far the most important. It is
important to keep the lines of communication open, and be frank and open
about what you expect and what is expected of you. This should be done
as early as possible in the work so that everyone knows where they
stand. The problem is that these 'simple problems' often balloon into
something more complex, e.g. a question on a proton leads to a COSY
then to an HMQC, and before you know it you're gradually doing some
non-trivial structure elucidation, and it all started with a proton.
I've copied a section form one of the e-mails sent to me:
<snip>
LESSON #1: as soon as you realize that your
contribution is transitioning from service level technical support to
scientific contribution/collaboration, go speak with the PI to be sure that
she/he realizes the depth of your involvement and make a clear agreement on
your role as a co-investigator/co-author on the project.
<snip>
2. All who expressed an opinion feel strongly that if the work could not have been done/interpreted without you, then you deserve co-author credit on the paper. The question to ask is, did I have a critical role in this research?
3. Consider how much time you spent on this project versus how much time the other researchers spent on it. If it only took few minutes of your time and the researchers spent months, it may not merit coauthorship. But this needs to be thought of in the context of point 2, even if you did not spend a great deal of time on this, your expertise may have been crucial.
4. If this is a constant problem, then it may be useful to stop providing additional assistance to that person/group. One suggested that you may want to let the person flounder for a little while, so that they realize that you have an important role to play. There are two important caveats to this:
A. Some may have this as a part of their job requirement, so that structure elucidation and other advanced actions may be required of them as a part of their employment. Thus they don't have a choice as to who they can work with
B. Is there a potential to create bad feelings by doing so? Approach something like this rationally, use your best judgment and try not to let emotions run too high.
Some of the responses mentioned that there is already a precedent/procedure for x-ray crystallography, and another mentioned that we as a community should make a document that addresses what is to be done versus what is expected as far as credit goes. Several mentioned that MS and x-ray people often got credit, but when someone wanted to shorten the author list is was the NMR people who got the shaft.
<snip>
You bring up a very good point, and regrettably, this is a perennial
problem that all of us have to deal with. Seems almost surreal that we
have not come up with something a bit more tangible by now, which is my
proposal actually, namely:
1) that a working group be assembled and a call made for suggested
recommendations (though this latter point you have
already done);
2) the responses tallied and a set of guidelines representing the
consensus of the input be prepared; and
3) the guidelines be voted on, or otherwise be evaluated in some manner
by the wider community.
This is easily something that could be discussed at ENC....
<snip>
I think this is an excellent idea, and one that we should consider and act on. Is anyone up for putting this on the meeting agenda, do we have time?
By far the most responses came from academia. There were widely varying results, some got no credit where credit was due, others were cited for what they considered to be routine work. The responses from those in industry ranged from poor (they rarely put my name on things) to excellent (I am always credited), one worked in industry for a few years and said that you could actually have your patent invalidated if you failed to cite all the inventors.
It also seems that there is a significant consensus, although the main point of contention was at what level is acknowledgment (not co-authorship or a reference) deserved. If there are any mistakes they are probably my own, please send any corrections and comments my way. Cheers,
Chris
Received on Tue Apr 04 2006 - 15:00:13 MST