Authorship
Case 15: Shifting criteria for order of authorship
Case 13 | Case 14 | Case 15
Case 16 | Case 17 | Case 18

Dr. Eee-the chairman of Dr. Eff's department-suggests that Eff "do a study" involving a tumor model that Eee discovered and has written about extensively. A student working with Eee has already done a thorough literature search on the subject. One of Eee's lab technicians teaches Eff the method. Eff works diligently during the next 2 years and finds new information worth publishing. She consults a staff statistician in the university's Biostatistics Division, analyzes the results with the statistician's help, and drafts the manuscript. (When designing her study, she had consulted with another staff statistician who had since retired from the Biostatistics Division.)

Eff asks two of her mentors as well as the chairman, Dr. Eee, to review the manuscript. One mentor, Dr. Gee, suggests major revisions that will really improve the paper. Gee also offers to have done an electron microscopic analysis that will strengthen her conclusions. Her other mentor, Dr. Em, makes suggestions about reorganizing certain aspects of the discussion section that are extremely helpful to Eff in rethinking the suggestions for major revisions.

Eff writes the paper, putting Eee's name as first author.

  • Eff lists herself as second author,
  • Gee is third author,
  • the statistician is fourth author, and
  • Em is fifth author.
  • She thanks the student and the lab technician in the acknowledgments section.
Eff sends a copy of the final draft to each coauthor, but takes Eee's copy to him personally. Eee is busy with a grant renewal and can't give the paper more than a glance-he says he's sure the paper is "fine". He tells Eff to put her own name as first author and make him the last author, but to name him as the corresponding author. He tells Eff to give the paper to his academic assistant to prepare it for submission to the rapid-publication journal, the Quick Biomedical Journal (QBJ).

Before the paper is submitted, Eee realizes that he is going to need Gee's generous collaboration on one aspect of the study he's proposing in his grant application. After a little thought, he decides that Eff doesn't need to be first author on this paper. She has been working on several other projects-he will ask Eff to write them up and she can be first author on those. He tells his academic assistant to make Gee first author and Eff second author, and when the paper's done to forge his signature and send it to the journal. Eee leaves for a meeting that evening and, in his haste, neglects to tell Eff or Gee about the change. By the time he comes back, he's forgotten all about it.

A few weeks later, Eee receives a letter saying that QBJ accepts the paper 'as is.' It is accompanied by the galley proofs and a copyright release form that offers the option of having all coauthors' signatures or, if that is inconvenient, only the signature of the 'senior' or 'corresponding' author-who in that case accepts accountability on behalf of all coauthors. Eee glances over the galleys, signs the copyright form on behalf of all authors, returns the package to QBJ, and writes an elated congratulatory note to Eff, Gee, and Em saying 'our paper is in press!'. Eee's academic assistant sends the note to Eff, Gee, and Em together with a copy of the copyright form.

Unfortunately, for Eff to take her specialty Board exam she needs to be the primary author of a published article. Not having seen the manuscript draft submitted or the galley proofs, she did not know that her name was no longer first on the byline-nor did she notice the changes on the copyright form when she received it. She discovers the change when the paper is published. Eff contacts the QBJ editorial office, which confirms the order of authorship by faxing her a copy of the signed copyright release. Because of the change, Eff is not able to sit for her Board examination. When Eff contacts Gee (whom Eee had changed from second to first author), Gee says he was not aware of the change and that, as he recalled, Eff had written the paper.

QUESTIONS:
  1. Who is an author?

  2. Who is not an author?

  3. Who should receive acknowledgment, and for what?

  4. Do both statisticians qualify for authorship?

  5. Do statisticians who provide routine statistical consultation regarding study design and analysis qualify for authorship any more than a technician would?

  6. How and when should the issues of authorship and order of authorship have been addressed?

  7. Should the journal? institution? play a role in enabling Eff to sit for her board exams?

  8. Should the journal? institution? pursue this case further? If so, how

  9. How can the journal? institution? avoid such a case in the future?



original case presented at a workshop sponsored by the Council of Science Editors