|
||||||||
|
FORUM
The Authorship Game: Determining Where Credit Is DueWhy are there so many authors on your paper?" Sighing, I shot Jorge a long-suffering "Here we go again" expression. A postdoc in my department, Jorge had just read a paper on my research that I'd published a few months earlier. Like several other colleagues, he wondered why there were five authors besides me listed on a manuscript about my thesis work. Behind his innocent question, I knew exactly what he was thinking: Either this woman finagled a first-author paper without doing all that much or she's a real pushover. "Actually," I began, "I did all of the experiments myself and wrote the entire manuscript." Jorge looked at me like I had the word doormat tatooed on my forehead. "Then what did all those other people do to deserve to be on your paper?" he asked reproachfully. As I struggled to justify the inclusion of so many authors Jorge shook his head in disapproval. He pointed out the huge disparity between my contributions to the manuscript and those of my co-authors. Although I agreed with his assessment, I couldn't see how I might have done things differently. Who Did WhatOn my manuscript, several people received authorship for providing unpublished strains or mutations that I used in my experiments. Some would argue that these people should not be listed as authors. In fact, the journal to which I submitted the paper provides instructions that state explicitly: "An author is one who made a substantial contribution to the overall design and execution of the experiments—individuals who provided assistance, e.g., supplied strains or reagents or critiqued the paper, need not be listed as authors but may be recognized in the Acknowledgments section."It sounds so clear-cut. In practice, however, these guidelines are sometimes impossible to follow. It's hard enough to procure reagents that have been published, much less unpublished ones. Often, one scientist must offer authorship on a manuscript to another in order to obtain an unpublished yet badly needed strain. In these situations, guidelines that aim to restrict authorship become impractical. The alternative is to construct the strain oneself, which can be a time-consuming and arduous task. Besides being idealistic, rules to restrict authorship are often vague, especially when it comes to determining the nature of intellectual contributions that deserve credit. Generally, ideas for crucial experiments, insightful interpretations of data, and substantial direction in the writing and editing tend to qualify for authorship. The contributions of one author on my paper fit into this category. He is a recognized authority on a topic that my research touched on, and he provided published strains and advice for some of my experiments. He even served as a guest member of my thesis advisory committee and went above and beyond the call of duty in helping me to revise my manuscript. But is this enough to merit authorship? What about the other members of the committee who have provided guidance in my research all along? And what about my labmates who freely share their ideas and criticisms in lab meetings? What about my colleagues who ask insightful questions when I give talks, providing me with ideas for experiments that strengthen my conclusions? Obviously, you have to draw the line somewhere, but that line is sometimes blurry. My instinct is to err on the side of generosity. Still, when I see all those names beside mine I feel disheartened at times. "You're the first author," some colleagues console me, "the rest really doesn't matter that much." Jorge disagrees. "It looks like you didn't do as much as you did," he asserts. As I look at the long list of authors, I can see what he means. Certainly, the fact that my name is listed first means that I made the greatest contribution to the paper, but the reader can't guess what percentage of the work that is. Toward New StandardsDespite Jorge's objections, I don't regret sharing authorship. But it strikes me as a deficiency in scientific journals that there is no way to determine which author is responsible for which components of a publication. I'm not alone in this belief. In 1997, two letters to Science addressed this very issue (Science 275: 461-465a). Instead of trying to impose restrictions on authorship, Benjamin White from Yale University School of Medicine argued that journals should "require the contributions of all authors to be baldly and briefly stated. Such a statement could conveniently be placed in the acknowledgments or in a footnote of a paper giving each author's initials and contribution." He went on to point out that in addition to "ensuring that authors share responsibility for the data they report in scientific papers," such a practice would also serve the scientific community by publicly allocating credit for published work.In the other letter, Jonathan Knight, associate secretary for the American Association of University Professors, argued for a similar procedure and added: "Making plain the actual contribution of each scholar to a collaborative work may not be easily achieved in every academic field, but it is a goal worth striving for." Apparently, editors at Nature agree. In 1999, they began an experimental policy that allows authors to stipulate which contributions were made by whom. "This is part of a movement that, we hope, will spread naturally across the scientific community," they wrote (Nature 399: 393). Meanwhile, I'm writing another paper on my thesis work that I hope to submit this month. Aside from myself, only my adviser and possibly one other student will be listed as authors. Thankfully, there are no sticky questions about authorship in this manuscript. —Robin Lucas, a 7th-year HMS graduate student in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences microbiology program |
