{"id":3222,"date":"2012-12-23T09:23:03","date_gmt":"2012-12-23T16:23:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/?p=3222"},"modified":"2012-12-23T09:48:51","modified_gmt":"2012-12-23T16:48:51","slug":"the-author-list-giving-credit-where-credit-is-due","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/minkhollow.ca\/beckerblog\/2012\/12\/23\/the-author-list-giving-credit-where-credit-is-due\/","title":{"rendered":"The Author List: Giving Credit Where Credit is Due…."},"content":{"rendered":"Approximate Reading Time: <\/span> 2<\/span> minutes<\/span><\/span>

phd031305s.gif GIF Image, 600\u00a0\u00d7\u00a0260 pixels<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Author lists SHOULD demonstrate scholarship and the advancement of knowledge. They should NOT be about politics. They ESPECIALLY should not be about paying ‘homage’ or stroking egos.<\/p>\n

Sadly, and, more and more, they are. I realize this is typical. That doesn’t make it right.<\/p>\n

I’ve always thought that ONLY people who actually contributed intellectually to the paper should have their names attached.<\/p>\n

I’ve never thought being the head of the lab should be worth publication credit. They deserve thanks in the acknowledgements. They shouldn’t be authors.<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

There are people who insist their name go on everything that comes out of their lab\u00a0 (subtly sometimes, but the pressure is there just the same). I have NO respect for those people, and neither should you. Sure, they have money to pay grad students to do work for them, and that’s great. That does not (at least, it should not) qualify anyone for authorship on the publication of a scholarly work.*<\/p>\n

When I talk to students about scholarship and publication, there are a few things I tell them to watch out for.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Someone with a very large number of publications. Chances are very good that all they contributed was money (which includes equipment and space). I know more than a few who probably couldn’t understand the contents of the paper that bears their name, even if they DID read it (which they likely didn’t). They for sure didn’t write any of it. If paying the researchers actually qualified someone for authorship, then every taxpayer ought to be listed on every paper. After all, their money made the work possible.<\/li>\n
  2. Someone who NEVER publishes as sole author. Theses, book reviews, and articles written while editors of journal don’t count. If this person never publishes alone, you really need to wonder why? Are they actually doing their share of the work or just hanging off of someone else’s coat tails? Are they even capable of the work? Maybe all they have to contribute is funding; in other words they are BUYING authorship, which should not be worth scholarly credit. Maybe their chief talent is in convincing others to do work and write it up. If you are an academic, mentoring others is part of your job. It should not earn you your name on a paper.<\/li>\n
  3. Someone who ONLY publishes as sole author. It is quite possible this person doesn’t play well with others. Scrutinize their work VERY carefully.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Those few who actually do original research and who actually have original ideas should be the ones getting credit for those ideas. I realize this may an overly idealistic view, but scholarship should be about the advancement of knowledge – not politics, or economics.<\/p>\n

    BAH!!<\/p>\n

    * Unless of course, you adopt the medicine model, in which case EVERYONE who had anything to do with the work gets their name added to the list. Then it’s fair again. I got my very first publication this way – I wrote the SPSS programs to run the stats. The statistician who analysed the data also got his name on the paper.<\/p>\n