Raza - a bit of a complicated one to answer here. Usually, the contributor of the original idea is somehow associate with resultant publications - at least in the early stages of new research I.e approached for permission or consultation. To me, unless the originator has had direct involvement then they should not be a designated author. If it is a copyright issue I.e permission to use a tool or a model - then they will get copyright mention. It's up to the main authors to decide who is acknowledged - and that is usually someone who has offered direct support - but not involved in the 'physical' process of the research I.e consultation, administrative support

Hello Dean and Raza,

Thank you for the question and the comment - well, I attended a seminar on research last week, and such a question came up - the originator of the idea or the concept or the research - would be the reference for others to refer to... and this individual's opinion should be taken - and agreement for whose name would appear where needs to be agreed upon...

However, in several instances, those high ranking professors who are keen to assist the early career researchers, and though would be involved in the first introduction of this new researcher to the source of the data, would suggest that they will be satisfied with only a 'thank you and acknowledgement'... Well, it is after all depending on the way these academics deal with each other and how respectful they are of each other's original ideas and the way such contribution will be acknowledged.

Regards

Thank you Dean and Theodora,

I understand this is a difficult scenario.. I am trying to compare this situation to when we provide a rationale for replicating a previously published study either with improved methodology or testing a specific subset of the population.. Citing the study is enough in that instance without any acknowledgements needed...

How do we apply this to a study in progress where the concept is used in a different situation or with an improved methodology.. I am not sure if we can cite it with the author's name as work in progress (or personal communication).. and then of course do we need to further acknowledge the original contributor of the idea..

regards, raza

No problem Raza. It seems clearer now in relation to your actual circumstance. We are all often trying to expand on the current knowledge-base. In most case we do this by just citing and acknowledging the existing (and completed) literature and including it in our reference lists. Replication studies are usually based on replicated previously completed and published studies. However, in this instance, I believe that the other study is not published. In my mind, you must be linked to this other study to know that it is being conducted. If this is the case, then any author acknowledgment will be based on to what extent the two studies are linked and which, or who, has contributed to which. You can't cite whatever is not published, unless it is 'in press' - or you cite it as 'unpublished'

Thank you Dean,

unfortunately i am not involved in cutting edge research so this stays a hypothetical scenario for me :)

but i guess this is a possible situation any researcher may come across during their careers.. The triggering point is the knowledge that certain researchers keep their research ideas 'safely locked lest they be stolen'... its not present everywhere but it does happen..

my take on this is that research idea is just one part of the whole research process.. the planning, the rigour with which it is conducted and the analysis and interpretation of results form other integral parts of the research process that determine the quality of the contribution to the literature..

i agree with you that whoever is involved in the 'physical process' should get the author contribution and unless the main working group feels exceptionally generous, the originator of the idea should just be acknowledged either as citation or separately at the end..

as researchers get more chances of interacting with each other, ideas do get shared across the globe, and thus it seems important that there should be guidelines on this issue..

regards, raza

With the idea originating from Mr. X, Mr. X gets a reference and Acknowledgement from me....

A simple reference is due and sufficient acknowledgment.

On the other hand, an acknowledgment would be used if the the idea is unreferenceable (e.g. an idea conveyed in the common room).

The originator of the idea or concept can be mentioned in the "Introduction", where we normally give the background of how the idea took shape and what was done to develop the idea or concept ! Besides acknowledgement in the beginning would be appropriate !

That said - I've personally never seen it before in any articles in my field I.e. Many thanks to xxxxx for stimulating the idea over a coffee one day. In my mind, I would react to it by saying 'good idea - lets shape it' or, if they didn't want to be involved I'd enquire 'is is something you want to develop yourself - or do you mind if I take it further'. If they didn't and consented over to me - end of story!!

@Dean: I have on a few occasions come across references being cited as 'personal communication'.. may be that is a way of acknowledging unpublished/ unpresented idea..

@Agnella: Thank you for these links, they have clarified many queries in my mind..

Raza - personal communication could be one way - but it still seems forced and not required to me - plus also not that common to see it in journals.

I Like Agnella's spin (or at least the ICJME) of 'substantial contribution to the conception' which, for me, (if the input is substantial i.e. - a small idea made much bigger) - then they should be a named author

It is worthwhile looking up the meanings of "substantial". TheSage lists them as

1. Fairly large.

2. Having substance or capable of being treated as fact; not imaginary.

3. Having a firm basis in reality and being therefore important, meaningful or considerable.

4. Of good quality and condition; solidly built.

5. Providing abundant nourishment.

I am familiar with the ICJME recommendations and I use them. It is a good practice to continuously brainstorm the research paper all through the phases of the research to keep all the authors and co-authors involved and for the betterment of the final product.

Good spin Ian. For me, but not sure if it does for anyone else, it further backs up my last point. OK - 'fairly large' muddies the water a bit - in that it is open to subjective interpretation. Some might think that my 'bank balance' is fairly large; my interpretation though - it's very small!! The 'providing abundant nourishment' notion seems less open to subjectivity. Abundant suggests lots - and 'nourishment' suggests something that is on-going - not a one-off. All semantics I know at the end of the day - but interesting to debate these things anyway - I think

A few years ago I co-authored a paper with my supervisor. He was the originator of the idea from which i built up the conceptual framework of the paper and I wrote every word of the manuscript myself (+ he provided critical comments to the initial draft). He became second author but we added an 'Author Contribution" disclosure to the ms which was published together with the article after acceptation. Maybe this solution was more 'correct' than just putting his name on the acknowledgements, though this happened a few years ago when i was not familiar with COPE and ICMJE recommendations.