quote:

---

Originally posted by: Ethics?
"A colleague I know has SFT’s name on a publication (or two) along with a graduate student.  When this colleague was asked if he collaborated with SFT on the research, the answer was that he collaborated with SFT's graduate student. Apparently, since the student worked in SFT’s lab, all pubs of the student’s work must carry his name.  When the colleague was asked if SFT wrote any of the paper, they didn’t answer, but body language indicated that he wrote none it.   In defense of SFT, I must point out that I have heard of this occurring in large engineering groups.  A researcher obtains a large grant, has many projects working under the grant and, in return, gets their name on all publications resulting from the research.  From discussions on this thread, I wonder, is the above considered ethically questionable? "

---

These are important and difficult issues -- at least partly discipline related.

In theatre (and I suppose many of the arts) faculty members often play key roles in the development of student work at the MFA level and particularly so in the creative or thesis project. But I have never seen an MFA thesis doc. or exhibition or performance in which the faculty member was listed as a contributor ie "coauthor."  We tend to take it for granted in the arts that we all walk on the path created by others -- but that our work is an extension of those whose artistic research we tend to follow. Thus our indebtedness to others tends to come in the form of acknowleging influences rather than in sharing artistic credit.

In theatre, the work is almost always the product of a team effort anyway -- a scenic design is not simply the product of the scenic designer but manifests itself as an expression of the artistic team through the scene designer. It is almost impossible to separate who has contributed the most to the concept -- although it is usually reasonably clear what each artist has contributed in his/her area of expertise.

I do remember a story from Derek McClane, an excellent New York Scenic Designer I assisted. Derek had done a production of Cymbeline with Julie Taymour as Director. She was determined that part of the credit for the setting should go to her as co-scenic designer. It didn't -- but the next time they were teamed together she made co-designership credit a pre-requisite. Derek refused to work with her and never has since. Most people in the theatre would recognize why this is a touchy issue -- the director by nature is involved in every phase of a show. It is usually understood that the position of "director" means having some degree of involvement in every artisitic facet of production. It is also usually understood that that involvement is not the same as being a designer, co-designer or "co-actor."

Don't know exactly how this might be relevant, as there are clearly differences in the sciences and more traditional research areas that probably render this model not applicable. But it might help in some of the grayer areas where credit is less clear. I definitely think that when it is a case of a senior professor or mentor attaching a name to work in order to derived something which he/she does not clearly deserve, it seems unethical.

 

I do know professors who claim that  attaching his/her name is a way to help boost the visibility and credibility of a student's research. I can understand the theoretical sense of this, but don't know if it is actually a genuinely successful strategy in practice. 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Commentary
"Very frequently a name is included as co-author of a publication when a footnote would be more appropriate. "

---

Much like the credits given at the end of a motion picture - footnotes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
" These are important and difficult issues -- at least partly discipline related. In theatre (and I suppose many of the arts) faculty members often play key roles in the development of student work at the MFA level and particularly so in the creative or thesis project. But I have never seen an MFA thesis doc. or exhibition or performance in which the faculty member was listed as a contributor ie "coauthor."  We tend to take it for granted in the arts that we all walk on the path created by others -- but that our work is an extension of those whose artistic research we tend to follow. Thus our indebtedness to others tends to come in the form of acknowleging influences rather than in sharing artistic credit. In theatre, the work is almost always the product of a team effort anyway -- a scenic design is not simply the product of the scenic designer but manifests itself as an expression of the artistic team through the scene designer. It is almost impossible to separate who has contributed the most to the concept -- although it is usually reasonably clear what each artist has contributed in his/her area of expertise. I do remember a story from Derek McClane, an excellent New York Scenic Designer I assisted. Derek had done a production of Cymbeline with Julie Taymour as Director. She was determined that part of the credit for the setting should go to her as co-scenic designer. It didn't -- but the next time they were teamed together she made co-designership credit a pre-requisite. Derek refused to work with her and never has since. Most people in the theatre would recognize why this is a touchy issue -- the director by nature is involved in every phase of a show. It is usually understood that the position of "director" means having some degree of involvement in every artisitic facet of production. It is also usually understood that that involvement is not the same as being a designer, co-designer or "co-actor." Don't know exactly how this might be relevant, as there are clearly differences in the sciences and more traditional research areas that probably render this model not applicable. But it might help in some of the grayer areas where credit is less clear. I definitely think that when it is a case of a senior professor or mentor attaching a name to work in order to derived something which he/she does not clearly deserve, it seems unethical.   I do know professors who claim that  attaching his/her name is a way to help boost the visibility and credibility of a student's research. I can understand the theoretical sense of this, but don't know if it is actually a genuinely successful strategy in practice.   "

---

Stephen-I like your line of thought on this, but it may be not directly map onto authorship challenges for my field (psychology). Here's why. In theatre, the end is the production--for example the evening's presentation of "Hairspray" (highly recommended entertainment for the entire family). Although there is some diffusion of creative juices, it is not too hard to say that one person was largely responsible for the scenic design, another for laying out the cash, another for acting out a part, another for swinging the baton, and so on. In many psychological studies, the actual idea may be the result of several people brainstorming, a couple more collecting the data, a couple more analyzing it from different angles, different people writing or editing different sections--often these roles are very much overlapping, and even in student led work there is quite a bit of closely shared intense intelllectual and brow sweat among a research team. In a diss, the assumption is that the student put in the most thinking and doing, but usually other students and faculty have thought and done enough on the project to merit authorship (and more are often listed in the non-authorship acknowledgements). Now, it might be useful for psychology to follow something closer to the theatre model and say "Joe had the idea first, Sara and Frank collected the data, Mike analyzed it and told us what it means, and Gail said Mike was crazy and we need to say there are other reasons for the findings in the discussion, Mary wrote two sections and Joe wrote the rest." The reality is that there is usually more overlap in what occurs in the process to the end "product" (a peer reviewed paper), and authorship order indicating relative contribution is probably a pretty good short hand way of providing credit. It wouldn't make sense in theatre, however (e.g., Was that Spielberg fella named fourth in the credits the guy the wrote the script, the guy that changed the light bulbs, or the second guy wearing the private's uniform?).       

The student!

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
"Stephen-I like your line of thought on this, but it may be not directly map onto authorship challenges for my field (psychology). . . . . .  (e.g., Was that Spielberg fella named fourth in the credits the guy the wrote the script, the guy that changed the light bulbs, or the second guy wearing the private's uniform?).       "

---

Mitch:

Thanks. I see your point -- although in fact there is also a huge amount of overlap in process in theatre as well. Sometimes the director and designer really do share credit for the conceptual framework of a production. Occasionally a designer might even author the conceptual framework. Sometimes the designer must simply be the director's gifted "hands", doring what the director cannot do by making something beautiful, moody, etc. But you are right -- the identities of each artist are relatively transparent, as are the understood spheres of activity. These facts may tend to make the need to assign specific credit much less critical as they are really generally already understood.

It seems to me that the problem under discussion is how to evolve a system of authorship that is transparent enough to guarantee integrity and universal enough to discourage abuse.  There seems to currently exist a set of conventions (i.e. listing "authors" in the order of significant contributions) that make sense. But as I understand it, those conventions might not be clear or transparent enough to deflect scholars and researchers who might use the conventions less than honestly. Clearly, in the absence of something definitve, some people might not feel an obligation to follow the "when in doubt, don't" rule.

 

 

 

 

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stephen judd
>>>It seems to me that the problem under discussion is how to evolve a system of authorship that is transparent enough to guarantee integrity and universal enough to discourage abuse.  There seems to currently exist a set of conventions (i.e. listing "authors" in the order of significant contributions) that make sense. But as I understand it, those conventions might not be clear or transparent enough to deflect scholars and researchers who might use the conventions less than honestly. Clearly, in the absence of something definitve, some people might not feel an obligation to follow the "when in doubt, don't" rule.          "

---

Stephen, I see your point, but in psychology the APA guidelines are pretty clear. But even the most transparent and clear rules do not stop folks from doing the wrong thing. What sometimes discourages bad publication behavior by mendacious people is the possibility of punishment, whether by an ethics committee, court, or by public humiliation. However, the world is full of people who don't always abide by the most clearly stated rules (jails are full of them; students park in faculty spots; non-handicapped faculty park in handicapped spots; and so on). I agree that clear rules are a good place to start. But even a minor sociopath can rationalize the craziest sort of nonsense to him or herself.  

I can't recall an instance in our department since I've been here when significant authorship disagreements have arisen. People generally play nice in this area, share, and are not greedy. Its probably the same in your (and most) department. It's sad that complaints in this area have arisen in some departments (the scuttlebutt reported previously on this site is that it involves people in education, but who knows...). However, as I said before, I believe that problems in this area at USM are the exception and not the rule.    

From the website that SCM pointed us towards -

Faculty qualify for second author on a student’s dissertation only if they’ve made substantial contributions to the project. Although second author doesn’t hold the same weight as first author, it does acknowledge a researcher’s hard work and counts toward that person’s publication list.

I'm with educator - "substantial contributions" do not equate to GUIDANCE. As dissertation chairs, our reponsibilities include guidance and not some bogus (!) second author status as a "payback" from the student.  Sure, the c.v. gets longer, but it shouldn't be as highly regarded as the ones where the chair (or members of the committee) get a second authorship from the student whose article/chapter/etc. gets published. A nice acknowledgment is appropriate, and in the case of some fields - maybe a second authorship is ethically correct. I came out of a Tier 1 university, mine was actually published as a book, and my chair strongly stated that he'd like to be acknowledged but never was he second author - he guided my dissertation - because it was his job. HOWEVER - do you all remember the case, discussed on this Board this past summer, where it's actually on a USM syllabus that "any research conducted through this class, that results in a publication, will include 'me' as the second author". Now that moves out of the dissertation realm - and into a whole new discussion. I do know that the syllabus from that certain CISE instructor is out there floating around. I haven't seen it, but it's been read back to me. Shame, shame.

quote:

---

Originally posted by: stinky cheese man
"the rules may be clear (which i doubt) but the circumstances sometimes don't fit the rules well.  my discipline also has authorship rules, but there are still instances where there are ambiguous areas.  a quick google search found an interesting article:  http://www.apa.org/monitor/dec98/credit.html"

---

SCM-Agreed, but you can have authorship rules the size of the US tax code (which has quite a bit of ambiguity and confusion, hence the job title accountant), and still have problems. The APA guidelines are pretty clear (I read that Monitor article years ago, but I have never heard a psychologist here or elsewhere say, "... geez, I just don't get it"). The problem, I think, is not a bad script, but bad actors.  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Emma
"From the website that SCM pointed us towards - Faculty qualify for second author on a student’s dissertation only if they’ve made substantial contributions to the project. Although second author doesn’t hold the same weight as first author, it does acknowledge a researcher’s hard work and counts toward that person’s publication list. I'm with educator - "substantial contributions" do not equate to GUIDANCE. As dissertation chairs, our reponsibilities include guidance and not some bogus (!) second author status as a "payback" from the student.  Sure, the c.v. gets longer, but it shouldn't be as highly regarded as the ones where the chair (or members of the committee) get a second authorship from the student whose article/chapter/etc. gets published. A nice acknowledgment is appropriate, and in the case of some fields - maybe a second authorship is ethically correct.

---

Agreed. A point that not yet has been made is that students are sole authors on dissertations. It is on papers that are based, in part or whole, on the dissertation, that others (students or faculty) may be included as authors. So, some papers include material from the dissertation as well as other studies. And some dissertations may produce multiple papers. A faculty member's guidance never earns dissertation credit. But once a paper dervied in part from that project is being written, authorship credit MUST be given in proportion to any substantial contribution made. I have seen the opposite situation by a student (one of my classmates in grad school), which is eqaully sleazy (he tended to push the envelope in an antisocial way throughout grad school). This doc student attempted to publish a paper derived from a diss without providing authorship credit to the major professor, who clearly deserved this credit. The prof merely shrugged his shoulders and let it go...  

quote:

---

Originally posted by: Mitch
"Agreed. A point that not yet has been made is that students are sole authors on dissertations. It is on papers that are based, in part or whole, on the dissertation, that others (students or faculty) may be included as authors. So, some papers include material from the dissertation as well as other studies. And some dissertations may produce multiple papers. A faculty member's guidance never earns dissertation credit. But once a paper dervied in part from that project is being written, authorship credit MUST be given in proportion to any substantial contribution made. I have seen the opposite situation by a student (one of my classmates in grad school), which is eqaully sleazy (he tended to push the envelope in an antisocial way throughout grad school). This doc student attempted to publish a paper derived from a diss without providing authorship credit to the major professor, who clearly deserved this credit. The prof merely shrugged his shoulders and let it go...  "

---

I think I am inclined to agree with you,  Mitch,  on your generally moderate view that we are trying to strike a balance between an oppressive system of legalisms that can get unwieldy and allowing people the opportunity to exercise good judgement. I also think this is probably not a huge problem. It is a shame that some might feel the need to "push the envelope" in grey areas rather than simply stepping back. One more reason, perhaps why we need to be concerned to uphold a system of values (rather than legalisms) that make academic culture possible. Why, for instance, plagerism or any other form of taking false credit is not simply wrong -- but it violates the basic principles upon which the culture of ideas depends. To return to an old theme -- it was this system of values that contributed  to the fundamental definition of a university community. I'm not saying there have not been academics in the past who cheated -- but they did so knowing the risks they took and the harm they did. I no longer find this kind of dedication to a somewhat immutable set of values to be as universally understood as it was when I joined the academy as a student. On the other hand, perhaps I'm just being too negative. Working in the present climate in which the primary motivation for our lives seem to be chiefly ascribed to the desire for profit can do that, I am afraid.

I remember when I was at Rochester Institute of Technology we got into a pretty major discussion  over scholars who gathered information for the CIA while on scholarly trips. Whether one agrees or not, the discussion was conducted primarily on the basis of whether such activities undermined  the credibility of scholars (individually and collectively) or their activities. Good arguments were made on both sides.  There were excellent arguments made in an effort to test the theoretical juxtaposition of imperative values in an effort to to test the limits, if any, of value and of action. Such a discussion at least helped that academic community to wrestle for its own answers for itself and its members.

These discussions of the ethical questions and system of value  have real life consequences -- and the failure to discuss them has consequences as well.

Thanks to all.