Curēus is working to become a valuable resource for medical authors and as such we are always on the look-out for good resources to pass along.
Melissa Broderick of Harvard Medical School recently published a very useful article entitled Six Tips for Avoiding Authorship Conflicts.
You can read Ms. Broderick’s guidelines below but we are also interested in your perspective and input. Have you run into this issue in your publishing experience?
How do you suggest avoiding the issue in the first place and if you do run into the issue how do you suggest handling it?
Authorship is designed to provide appropriate credit for intellectual contributions and can be a source of personal satisfaction, prestige, and a stepping stone toward academic career advancement. In theory, assigning authorship is a straightforward process; however, in practice, it can sometimes produce painful disputes over authorship order and responsibilities.
Considering these challenges, it is not surprising that authorship disputes accounted for nearly 15 percent of all self-reported issues brought to the HMS/HSDM/HSPH Ombuds Office last year.
What’s at stake in these disputes? Fair credit, collegial relationships, future collaborations and reputations, among others. Visitors often report that discussions and decision making didn’t occur until incompatible assumptions had been formed and deadlines for submission were looming, increasing the challenges of these conversations. So what can you do to avoid such conflicts?
1. Familiarize yourself with the HMS Authorship Guidelines and encourage the same of your colleagues and collaborators. If you oversee a lab, provide authorship guidelines to all newcomers to the lab and a description of the lab’s usual ways of deciding authorship and authorship order.
Key Definitions and Responsibilities of the HMS Authorship Guidelines include:
- An author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution
- The funding and provision of technical services, patients, materials alone are not sufficient
- Everyone making a substantial intellectual contribution to the work should be an author
- Everyone making other substantial contributions should be acknowledged
- All authors should review manuscript drafts and approve the final version
- One author should take primary responsibility for the whole work, including compiling a concise written description of everyone’s contributions that all authors have approved and filing it with the sponsoring institution
- Authors should describe each author’s contributions and how order was assigned to help readers interpret roles correctly
2. Talk early about authorship and authorship order for each project’s manuscript(s)
- the specific criteria to be used for your project
- the decision making process—who provides what input, how decisions are made, who has final say if a consensus agreement is not reached
- how to address disagreements if they arise
3. When gathering input about contributions, ask everyone to put in writing and share:
- her/his contributions
- what s/he thinks every other author contributed (this can reveal misunderstandings and provides the opportunity for clarification)
4. If authorship determination seems straightforward, set forth authorship designations but with a caveat that this could change if contributions change significantly.
5. Create a culture of transparency and collaboration and revisit the issue of specific authorship periodically in case contributions or assumptions about contributions have changed.
6. If a disagreement arises, make every effort to resolve the dispute locally:
- among the authors
- by involving the lab chief or other appropriate person
- by involving the HMS/HSDM/HSPH Ombuds Office (additional resources exist within Harvard’s affiliate institutions)
One thought on “Guidelines for Avoiding Authorship Conflicts”
Melissa Broderick of Harvard Medical School does a great job of writing and outlining the importance of clear, organized, and collaborative efforts. If only everyone would put his/her ego aside and realize that a team is only functional when all independently working parts are communicating effectively. Lest a scientific article read like a disjointed outline of “things maybe someone might write about eventually.”
I particularly appreciate this bullet: “Everyone making other substantial contributions should be acknowledged.”
Kudos to HMS for getting this right and for allowing us to post such important information for all to read and from which to grow wiser in moving forward. This article is certainly not just for authors…everyone should read between the lines.