It occurred to me that many directors of big research units with several independent groups or institute put his name on every single publication in spite of the fact that he does not read all of them. Very often the person made no intellectual contribution but only gave some financial support! From a ethical point of view is it acceptable?
Financial support is not adequate grounds for getting your name an article.
Labs require much money to continue on. Certain names attract money. Others don't. It's in the interests of all in an institute to use the big name as effectively as possible.
It reminds me of a way of doing things among the most wealthy in England in the sixteenth century. Able to command labour and other assets on a large, large scale, these people realised others had created what they now owned. But that creation only came a out by "their" efforts, albeit indirectly.
Solution to dilemma? To say the distinguished wealthy person had "caused" the item (house, manufactory, homes for the poor, etc etc.). "to be made." Ie although they had done nothing directly too produce the item, it wouldn't exist without them.
Now, that's neat! People complain too much about the necessary these days, I'm afraid....
Christopher NOCK
Dr Nock , I greatly appreciate your interesting comment. Thank you very much, Best regards. jp
While Chris' response provides an alternative view of patronism this occurred in cultures without established wage systems and where even the best artists, for example, required a Lord to get greater recognition and protection (Shakespeare for example). But these Lords did not claim to have written or painted outstanding works. Think of the odd situation if an aristocrat had put his name to Mona Lisa or Michaelangelo's David. It was the fame of the artist that gave attention to those around them.
Stanley, I make no claim to expertise in the matter. My comments are based on cases in which I'm aware "...caused me to be made" was used in England. In particular a country house of which I have an image (somewhere). In such a matter very few working on the project would have been Leonardo's. You criticism of my contribution is quite. And that happens far too often...or is it just a coincidence?
NOCK
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
To clarifly: Google "caused me to be made" and there's several English examples stretching back even further than I remembered. King Alfred is mentioned as one such "cause".
NOCK
I agree that it is absolutely inappropriate and fradulent behavior. Such things demotivate each honest researcher
Not at all... It is unethical, but of course I can put in the ACKNOWLEDGEMENT section.
As Dr. Sanatombi suggested, its better to acknowledge the person in acknowledgement section than putting as a co-author.
He might have made the whole research possible by providing opportunity to use instruments, facilities, grants and other money need as well as supervision of the research. We do not know and students do not think about these things.
I think that whoever sign a research publication should be able to understand and defend its content during discussions in meetings. If not the person could be acknowledged at the end of the publication (financial support etc).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Philosophy
- Ethics