Authorship Issues and Conflict in the U.S. Academic Chemical Community.

Jeffrey I Seeman, Mark C House
Author Information
  1. Jeffrey I Seeman: a Department of Chemistry , University of Richmond , Richmond , Virginia , USA.

Abstract

A survey on credit issues and related "responsible conduct of research" (RCR) behaviors was conducted with academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the U.S. Six hundred faculty members responded. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to projects the results of which had been published, including when they themselves were students. Thirty percent of these individuals discussed this lack of credit with the "offending" individual, and as a consequence of those discussions, a small percentage of individuals were provided either co-authorship or an acknowledgment. The majority who did not enter into a discussion with the "offending" individual reported two primary reasons for not doing so: that they "could not imagine any good coming from such a conversation" and "I was afraid of being in a compromised situation." A discussion of relationship asymmetry in the academic setting is provided. Confronting one's colleague regarding credit is compared with whistleblowing, and the possible consequences of blacklisting are discussed. A number of recommendations for minimizing authorship disputes are provided.

Keywords

References

  1. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):387-94 [PMID: 18044009]
  2. Mutat Res. 2005 Jan;589(1):17-30 [PMID: 15652224]
  3. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1181-96 [PMID: 25344843]
  4. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2009 Apr;53(3):159-60 [PMID: 19236903]
  5. Sci Eng Ethics. 2015 Oct;21(5):1085-93 [PMID: 25256408]
  6. Account Res. 2010 May;17(3):115-29 [PMID: 20461568]
  7. Nature. 2010 Jul 22;466(7305):438-40 [PMID: 20651674]
  8. Fam Med. 2002 Jun;34(6):462-7 [PMID: 12164625]
  9. Am J Med Sci. 2011 Feb;341(2):106-9 [PMID: 20924283]
  10. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):222-4 [PMID: 9676661]
  11. Sci Eng Ethics. 2007 Dec;13(4):415-35 [PMID: 18008185]
  12. Toxicol Ind Health. 2007 Nov;23(10):557-71 [PMID: 18717514]
  13. Prof Ethics. 1999 Spring;7(1):45-58 [PMID: 12569919]
  14. Account Res. 2015;22(6):330-45 [PMID: 26155730]
  15. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):301-3 [PMID: 18668347]
  16. Ann Intern Med. 1999 Apr 20;130(8):661-70 [PMID: 10215563]
  17. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Jun;20(2):345-61 [PMID: 23813053]
  18. MedGenMed. 2004 Jul 22;6(3):1-2 [PMID: 15520623]
  19. Account Res. 2010 May;17(3):146-69 [PMID: 20461570]
  20. Account Res. 2011 Mar;18(2):71-5 [PMID: 21390871]
  21. Sci Eng Ethics. 2008 Sep;14(3):337-43 [PMID: 18481197]
  22. Nature. 1998 Oct 29;395(6705):826 [PMID: 9804403]
  23. Ambix. 2010 Jul;57(2):202-15 [PMID: 20973442]
  24. Account Res. 2010 Jul;17(4):176-97 [PMID: 20597017]
  25. Am Sci. 1969 Spring;57(1):1-23 [PMID: 5781401]
  26. Sci Eng Ethics. 2014 Dec;20(4):885-96 [PMID: 24337932]
  27. Sci Eng Ethics. 2013 Sep;19(3):677-84 [PMID: 22535576]
  28. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):455-68 [PMID: 11697001]
  29. Synapse. 2009 Jul;63(7):539-40 [PMID: 19253401]
  30. Mutat Res. 2005 Jan;589(1):31-45 [PMID: 15652225]
  31. Acad Med. 2007 Sep;82(9):865-9 [PMID: 17726393]
  32. Sci Eng Ethics. 2001 Jul;7(4):487-503 [PMID: 11697005]
  33. Account Res. 2015;22(6):307-11 [PMID: 26155728]
  34. Account Res. 2011 Mar;18(2):76-90 [PMID: 21390872]
  35. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e23477 [PMID: 21931600]
  36. Account Res. 2009;16(5):254-67 [PMID: 19757231]
  37. Account Res. 2011 Mar;18(2):91-101 [PMID: 21390873]
  38. PLoS One. 2010 Dec 15;5(12):e14279 [PMID: 21179507]
  39. Account Res. 2013;20(2):59-71 [PMID: 23432769]
  40. Science. 2003 Aug 8;301(5634):733 [PMID: 12907762]
  41. Account Res. 2010 Sep;17(5):223-56 [PMID: 20924807]
  42. Account Res. 2009 Apr-Jun;16(2):106-26 [PMID: 19353388]
  43. JAMA. 1997 Aug 20;278(7):579-85 [PMID: 9268280]

MeSH Term

Authorship
Chemistry
Conflict, Psychological
Ethics, Research
Faculty
Humans
Publishing
Students
Surveys and Questionnaires
United States

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0creditprovidedconductRCRacademicUSpercentreportedindividualsdiscussed"offending"individualdiscussionauthorshipsurveyissuesrelated"responsibleresearch"behaviorsconductedchemistsPhDgrantinginstitutionsSixhundredfacultymembersrespondedFiftyrespondentsreceivingappropriatecontributionsmadeprojectsresultspublishedincludingstudentsThirtylackconsequencediscussionssmallpercentageeitherco-authorshipacknowledgmentmajorityentertwoprimaryreasonsso:"couldimaginegoodcomingconversation""Iafraidcompromisedsituation"relationshipasymmetrysettingConfrontingone'scolleagueregardingcomparedwhistleblowingpossibleconsequencesblacklistingnumberrecommendationsminimizingdisputesAuthorshipIssuesConflictAcademicChemicalCommunitycollegialityconflictresolutionmediationmentoringpublicationresponsibleresearch

Similar Articles

Cited By