I am interested in hearing on how different researchers give credit to co-researchers that do essential practical exploration work and experiments in their projects, but are not taking part (unwilling or unable) in the writing prosess.
If they can (or will) not participate in the process of writing and improving the manuscript, they will be listed in the acknowledgments. The ICMJE guidelines are always mentioned at the beginning of each project/collaboration in order to attune expectations and authorship.
If they can (or will) not participate in the process of writing and improving the manuscript, they will be listed in the acknowledgments. The ICMJE guidelines are always mentioned at the beginning of each project/collaboration in order to attune expectations and authorship.
I must agree with Alexander Fjaeldstad. If it is wished to formally thank those who have contributed only to the routine aspects of experimental work, then there should be an additional section of the paper at the end, headed 'ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS' and their names listed there.
I think that to list them as co-authors is a bit OTT - IMHO one of the great plagues of medical periodicals in recent decades is the spread of hugely multi-authored papers. I seem to remember some years ago a paper on cardiology in a very reputable journal was awarded an igNobel prize, because the huge number of authors had contributed an average of 3.5 words each!
Alternatively, it might be possible to list the main authors,and state that they were writing on behalf of (say) the 'such and such project collaboration', whose members were......
Finally, if the experimental work is of a novel nature, or yields unexpected results, then the researchers should be encouraged to write up the work themselves, and submit it for publication.
Bw
Chris Ide
Kjartan seals the answer with his question... “co-researchers,.... essential practical work....”. If the main author does not wish to credit as Co-authors then perhaps they ought to get their bench lab skills up to speed! Research is a team game, single-author papers have a reputation of turning out flawed results, viz Andrew Wakefield and more recently the Chinese human genetics experimenter whose name escapes me. I am strongly in support of, to use the Motorsport analogy, the people in the garage.
Jonathan,
I note what you say, and appreciate your analogy.
However, if the other workers decline (as distinct from not being asked) to be involved with the writing of the paper, then how can they contribute to ensuring its integrity?
Incidentally, I am presuming that you are referring to the Wakefield paper which claimed to have established an association between MMR vaccine and autism
( 1. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM, Malik M, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet. 1998;351:637–41. [PubMed] ). If so, it was trashed on a number of grounds - ethical problems, defective research methods, and failure to disclose financial interests, etc. However, it was the work of 13 authors, 12 of whom singularly failed to blow the whistle.
Bw
Chris Ide
I agree that if co-workers decline to have their contribution recognised their wishes must be respected. We are all part of the “knowledge economy” these days. Know-how knowledge is every bit part and parcel of our work as Why knowledge.
J
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing