Editor's Choice | This Week in BMJ | Press releases

BMJ No 7110 Volume 315 Letters Saturday 20 August 1997 Authorship See editorial by Richard Smith Changing authorship system might be counterproductive Editor The problem of authorship in science(1) should be set in the wider context of debates that have raged in literary criticism since the early 1970s. In the work of Derrida most notably, the traditional concept of authorship with its implications of individualism and authority over the interpretation of textual meaning has been overthrown in theory, if not entirely in practice.(2) Authorship is a political problem; it involves staking and maintaining territorial rights, colonisation, and empire building. In this it fairly accurately reflects the power game that is involved in the conduct of science itself. The sociology of scientific knowledge shows the actual practice of science to be remote from the received image of selfless dedication to the pursuit of disinterested knowledge.(3, 4) It is, rather, a highly politicised sector of the economy in which the first priority is to obtain the funds necessary to establishing and maintaining those research programmes on which so many scientists' careers, at all levels of seniority, depend. This is not a criticism, merely an observation. Hence I think it would be a mistake to conclude that the authorship system has broken down and needs radical revision.(5) If the present system reflects the structural and dynamic power relations that constitute scientific communities, and if these relations are the inevitable basis of the institutionalisation and conduct of science, then the only reasonable justification for change would be to represent accurately a radically revised basis of science itself. As far as I can tell, this revision is impracticable because power relations will always be the essence of the generation of scientific knowledge. A depoliticised authorship system implies a depoliticised science, which implies its total detachment from the state, industry, and society. Even if such a science were possible it would lose what tenuous significance it has for the world outside its own institutions. Would it not be better, therefore, to leave the present authorship system to continue its present slow evolution in so far as it accurately reflects the real power relations in science? What is really required, I suggest, is to educate scientific and wider communities into the art of reading scientific literature from a different perspective which more accurately reflects the power paradigm of its production. I do not think that by manipulating the authorship system one could effect any important change in the conduct of science itself. On the contrary: the most likely outcome would be to add another layer of obscurity to conceal its essentially political nature. Tim Scott Research fellow Centre for Health Services Studies, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL References 1 Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 1997;314:1009-12. (5 April.) 2 Derrida J. Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. (Trans Gayatri Chakravorti Spivak.) 3 Mulkay M. Sociology of science. Buckingham: Open University Press, 1991. 4 Knorr-Cetina KD. The manufacture of knowledge. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1981. 5 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) System acknowledging roles of contributors is best Editor Richard Smith has invited comment on the issue of authorship.(1) I think it would be an excellent idea to scrap the concept of authorship as we now know it and to opt for a system in which the role of various contributors is acknowledged. I do not believe that the issue of ultimate responsibility is a major problem. Indeed, the descriptive system would facilitate the identification of the person ultimately responsible. In the great majority of my nearly 200 papers in refereed journals I have acted as initiator, raiser of funds, supervisor, more often than not writer, and certainly the person accepting ultimate responsibility. For more than 20 years, however, I have had the responsibility of supervising research students, who have invariably been the first author. I frequently encounter senior colleagues who have not been aware of my involvement with such work. Our studies relating to the health consequences of vegetarianism and diet and diabetes are particularly good examples. I would regard these two issues as being among my main contributions during my entire research career, yet my name has appeared second or last on the papers. There has been no clear distinction between my role and that of, say, the statistician or dietitian, whose role may have been important but certainly was not instrumental in the study. I appreciate that such a fundamental change would undermine citation indexes, but perhaps these would then be replaced by more appropriate systems of academic credit. From an immediate practical point of view it would simply be necessary to obtain agreement relating to descriptors, which I hope would go beyond `contributors' and `guarantors' as suggested in Smith's editorial. J I Mann Professor in human nutrition and medicine Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand 1 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) Question of authorship concerns everyone in training grades Editor While many benefits make up the carrot of having work published, the sticks held up before potential authors should be public accountability for `their' words and the availability of accurately produced data.(1) Recent episodes have highlighted the seriousness of failure to uphold these standards.(2) Perhaps the number of authors on a work should be limited, although this would bring its own problems. Certainly some journals' practice of listing only the first three authors in the references goes some way towards this. Another alternative, which was not particularly favoured in Raj Bhopal and colleagues' study,(3) is the limiting of citations on one's curriculum vitae, yet this would probably have attractions in a different group, such as trainees. For many or perhaps all of us in the training grades, appearing in the literature and thus authorship is a game we have to play to get on. There are no other ways of distinguishing between equally well qualified people on paper, and personal recommendation is now perceived as politically incorrect. The `vexed question of authorship' is of concern to all of us in the training grades, but one question remains: was having nine authors for this study(3) deliberate? Michael J Wareing TWJ fellow in otological research Department of Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143-1526, USA michaelwareing@rocketmail.com References 1 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) 2 Dyer O. Consultant struck off for fraudulent claims. BMJ 1995;310:1554. 3 Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 1997;314:1009-12. (5 April.) Coworkers should be named Editor Medical and scientific research papers are always the fruit of collaboration of many workers at different levels, and even when eight or more authors are named, many remain unsung. Before publication some papers have been revised by anonymous referees or partly rewritten by medical editors for clarity, relevance, logic, and conciseness. Librarians, pharmacists, statisticians, etc may have given helpful advice. The work of data collection may have occupied nurses, interviewers, technicians in special departments (radiology, biochemistry, etc)-work for which they were routinely employed or did as an extra. Backing it will have been finance officers, secretaries, porters. In cinema and television the credits roll to name not only the creative artists, the sound and lighting technicians, and the set carpenters but even the location caterers, the accountant, and the insurers. Why not do the same in journals?(1) Some team members want authorship for five minutes' personal glory, or to further their careers, because bureaucrats find `authorship counting' an easy assessment of individuals and departments. But readers (and publishers) do not want a space-occupying meaningless list of names-they want to know who chiefly is responsible for the planning, coordination, analysis, and presentation of the work; who is leader of the group or department; and what part of the work other specialists (named) have contributed. These are separate matters. Authorship should be strictly limited to a maximum of four people, who take responsibility for everything said and done-that is, they are satisfied with the validity of the data provided by their specialist coworkers. In the abstract of the paper, after the conclusions, there should be an additional section, headed `Coworkers.' In this section will appear the coworkers' names and specialisms and what they contributed to the project, and the journal's editors will decide where to draw the line in accepting some or all for publication. The head of the research group can be named in parentheses after the name of the clinic from which the work comes (as has been the practice in German journals), or in the coworkers section. People who do extra work of the sort for which they are already employed might get monetary reward or the equivalent of Air Miles for their pains, but that is not a matter for journals. John Crammer Retired reader in biological psychiatry South Grange, Steeple Aston, Bicester OX6 3SS References 1 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) Work done by junior researchers gives rise to problems Editor We think that Richard Smith's ideas for crediting work done and for having guarantors of integrity fit nicely with the way that we do things, because our work is necessarily done by a team.(1) Each member brings different talents and skills. It is the recognition of the necessary spadework (often done by junior researchers learning their trade) that vexes us most. The `diggers' are often in a position neither to give a formal presentation nor to conceive or design a study, because of lack of experience. Despite making an enormous contribution they might fall short of the criteria for authorship if the Vancouver guidelines were followed to the letter. To disenfranchise them would be unfair; credits would get round this problem. We now hold a `public' read through of the final versions of papers leaving this unit, in the presence of all involved. This ensures not only that everyone involved approves the final version but also (we hope) a more readable and understandable paper. We also believe that it helps us to comply with the spirit of the Vancouver guidelines. H J McQuay Clinical reader in pain relief R A Moore Consultant biochemist Pain Relief Unit, Churchill Hospital, Oxford OX3 7LJ henry.mcquay@pru.ox.ac.uk References 1 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) Bhopal and colleagues' suggested method of ordering authors wouldn't work Editor Although admirable in intent, R S Bhopal and colleagues' suggestion that the order of authors on research papers should be decided by aggregating individual preferences is unworkable in practice.(1) Consider five authors-a, b, c, d, and e-who respectively think that the order of their colleagues' names should be (b, c, e, d); (d, e, c, a); (a, b, d, e); (e, a, b, c); and (b, d, c, a). Following the suggested method-in which first place is awarded four points, second place three points, and so on-yields: first b (13 points), then d and e (both with 10 points), then a (9 points), and finally c (8 points), so that the `democratic' ordering would be b, d=e, a, c. Even if the problem of what to do about the equal scores of d and e is ignored, the result is problematic because, according to the individual preferences, majorities exist for a being before b (both c and d are in favour of this, and only e favours the reverse) and c being before a (this is favoured by both b and e whereas d is against it); neither of these preferences is reflected in the group ordering. As the voting scheme gives no indication of the intensity of the authors' opinions about their choice of ranking, the group ordering is little more than arbitrary. This is not a special case-political economists have been troubled by such `voting paradoxes' for over 200 years.(2) The economist Kenneth Arrow won the 1972 Nobel prize in economics largely for proving that, in general, there is no fair and logical way of aggregating individual preferences into a single, collective ordering.(3) This makes any sort of voting scheme for deciding sequences of authors impracticable. Fortunately, no such difficulties were encountered in deciding the order of authorship for this letter. Paul de Sa Research fellow Science, Technology and Public Policy Program, Center for Science and International Affairs, John F Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 79 John F Kennedy Street, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA paul_de_sa@harvard.edu References 1 Bhopal RS, Rankin JM, McColl E, Stacy R, Pearson PH, Kaner EFS, et al. Authorship. BMJ 1997;314:1046-7. (5 April.) 2 Black D. The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958. 3 Arrow KJ. Social choice and individual values. 2nd ed. London: Yale University, 1963. New authorship practices are needed in developing countries Editor Richard Smith expresses his dissatisfaction with the authorship paradigm and supports a radical solution: abolish the concept of authorship and replace it by a descriptive system (like film credits).(1) A study by Raj Bhopal and colleagues showed that, among researchers in a British medical faculty, guidelines on authorship were inadequate and often not adhered to.(2) Hitherto, the debate has focused on the publication of research from developed countries. The issue, however, is of equal interest to the developing world. After reading Bhopal and colleagues' paper, I solicited views about the rules concerning authorship from 10 Tanzanian researchers at the National Institute for Medical Research in Mwanza. As in Britain,(2) a range of practical and intellectual contributions were considered grounds for authorship. Eight respondents considered gift authorship to be a problem; four thought it was common, and the others had no idea how common it was. Seven researchers said that gift authorship should be banned. Problems with or conflicts about authorship were commonly reported, such as exclusion from the list of authors when authorship was thought to be deserved (6) and inclusion when it was not merited (3). Eight researchers liked the idea of a film credit system, mostly because of its transparency and frankness. The two others did not like it because they thought that it was too cumbersome and would not support existing reference systems and curriculum vitae. Current systems of authorship in large studies in developing countries vary. Gift authorship or inappropriate ranking of authors seems to be common and to be part of development aid in some projects. The researchers themselves, however, prefer to be acknowledged for what they have actually done rather than be part of a politically correct process of allocating authorship. I agree with Smith that it is time for a paradigm shift. In the context of developing countries the current methods of allocating authorship are obscure and paternalistic. Even though the name of the researcher in the host country ranks high on the list of authors or appears in many publications, he or she may not be taken seriously, simply because senior international researchers are also listed or because the researcher is one of several fellow researchers listed from that country who barely contributed to the study. Current authorship practices may contribute to further underdevelopment of research and researchers in developing countries and fail to acknowledge the researchers appropriately for their actual and essential contributions. As a first step, all articles should have a footnote specifying the contributions of every author. Ties Boerma Senior technical adviser TANESA Project, PO Box 434, Mwanza, Tanzania tboerma@tan2.healthnet.org References 1 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) 2 Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, et al. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 1997;314:1009-12. (5 April.) Authorship is influenced by power and departmental politics Editor As an undergraduate, I researched and analysed 33 000 postmortem records in a university institute. For the study I won a university award. The institute wanted to use and publish my findings without my name, arguing that the original materials were the property of the institute and that it paid for my work by giving a cheque with the award. I was so incensed that I refused to take the award (and the money) and wrote to the rector of the university, forbidding it to use my research findings. The reply was swift. The university too forbade me to publish my findings because the original material belonged to a university institute which did not consent to it. Seventeen years on, the study has still not been published. In clinical research, data derived from patients belong to consultant X or Professor Y, on the grounds that the doctor is in overall charge of the patients' treatment. The custom of this `possession' is so ingrained that nobody dares question it. Thus it is not possible to use clinical data without the explicit consent of the consultant in charge of the patient. Requesting this usually brings a request from the consultant to see the draft of the paper. Because he or she usually makes some suggestions one can expect the explicit or implicit request for the consultant to be listed as a coauthor. Junior staff, who are in a vulnerable position because they depend on their seniors, will willingly or grudgingly offer them at least coauthorship before they formally request it. Very few consultants will turn down such an offer, saying that they did not participate enough to deserve it. How many of us are brave enough to tell our consultant, `Your participation in this paper does not fulfil the Vancouver criteria, but would you be kind enough to support my application for that post?' I know a consultant who encouraged his juniors to write separate papers putting each other's names on them, and of course his-all in the spirit of the Vancouver recommendations. A further problem in Britain is that juniors in clinical medicine stay in one place for only a short time. By the time all the data have been collected, analysed, and written up to be published they have probably already moved on. Their contribution is hardly mentioned, if mentioned at all. A Ezsias Senior registrar John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU References 1 Smith R. Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 1997;314:992. (5 April.) Authorship collection Feedback Your name  Your email address  Your comments Your browser may not support form filling - please send your comments to bmj@bmj.com Home | Current issue | Past issues | Classified ads | Career Focus | Feedback Collections | About this site | About the BMJ | BMA | Medline