A scientist who does not contribute in a research publication but due to his position as head of the section, insists every scientist to put his name . Is there any solution for this problem and do you think it should be?
Yes, this is a case of fraudulent authorship. Usually, these cases happened with political-research papers.
No, it's really bad. Head of the institute should not force his/her colleagues to include his/her name as a co-author of the publication for which he/she has not contributed.
It's very unethical; academic theft that destroys the very foundation of Science.
It's very wrong and against publication ethics. Moreover, it should be shameful on the part of the author in question, and is expected he/she tows the line of honour, and decline inclusion.
It is not correct and unethical to include someone as author who has no contribution materially, financially or composing the write up. However, it happens routinely across the globe to include someone who is influential in the research team or in the working institute. If the head position is on rotation policy, one can write to the editor. Many journals currently ask for "Conflict on interest" statement where it can be mentioned. Conversely, if the head position is permanent, it may invite several practical issues including delaying increments or promotions, red-tapism, straining the relationship and mental stress etc. Many include such persons as authors to avoid unpleasant consequences.
This is wrong on so many levels. If that person intends to be listed as author, of course he should be an author. If he were listed but there is no essay to be found in whatever Festschrift, edition or whatnot we are talking about, it would actually be to his disadvantage. The only way to be mentioned, would be as one of the editors, but naturally you would be required to actually do the work.
All this comes naturally, but I get the impression that its not those cases we are talking about but probably rather somebody writing an essay and a superior forcing himself upon him and act as if he did half of the work by being listed next to the actual author. By doing so he adorns himself with borrowed plumes! He did ot do a thing but acts as if. IIt is very unfortunate but those things do happen. For academics this it a complete no-go! There is rarely anything worse than pretending to have produced an intellectual product like a text even though one has not done a thing. It comes next to stealing it completely and not letting the original author being mentioned even. If there is any way to refuse that person, you should do so. I know, however, that this might proof difficult if that person is a superior and you are depending on him. Tricky situation. I wonder about how that person argued when trying to convince the people involved of being listed without having done anything?
If that person had something to do with the research, by supporting it, supporting the financing or whatnot, it is widely accepted to mention that person in a footnote or in a forewort and express your gratitude for supporting the research, but thats about it.
This is a case of fraudulent authorship. Fraudulent authorship can be any of these as gift authorship, hierarchical authorship, honorary authorship, or ghost authorship. It is unethical to name somebody who has not made a substantial contribution to the work as an author.
Sometimes, authorship is given as a gift based on many extraneous considerations (gift authorship). Giving authorship to the head of the department or institution, simply because s/he is the head is an example of hierarchical authorship. The practice occasionally seen to put somebody’s name as author for the prestige it confers to the paper (honorary authorship) must also be condemned. Ghost authorship is the most despicable form of fraudulent authorship, wherein, somebody else writes for a person.
Of course it is not, but it depends again on the participation in the publication or publication of the paper.
No. Unless the publication is based on your research and ideas. The writers must get your approval.
Dear Dr. Manoj,
This is what unfortunately happened today. It is very bad behavior and it is unethical request as well as, it is a shameful action and not honest experience... . Must be stopped.
Kind regards,
Naseer Almukhtar
This is so wrong .. doing it continuously by researchers doesn’t make it right
Generally, it is not acceptable in terms of research ethics unless you contribute or make drastic changes or reasonable modifications on condition that you get approval or agreement from the original authors.
1. It happened to me in Japan. I had to put the names of all the group members in the article.
2. Some PhD students write articles and write the name of the professor
3. Group of researchers help each other by working everyone in a different topic but everyone put all the names in his/her paper.
Of course not. But contribution can be in reading the paper and giving some suggestions and correction to improve the paper isn't it?
I have such experience, but I would not repeat it. Only one who contributed can be one of the authors of the work.
As I mentioned in a previous post, hierarchical authorship is widespread among academia. The HODs should understand that it is unethical to put the name of the Head of the Institution/Department as an author unless s/he has had some part in the work. If they are giving a deaf ear to the happenings around the word, somebody in your institution should have the courage to point out the ethics involved to him/her!
Manoj Sharma ,
O my my ! How its possible by a scientist? I think it is serious injurious for him and rest of the society . The intellectuality will go to drain !!!!
Read through the document to correct any errors and add any relevant thoughts. If you believe the corrections and additions you made are a significant contribution or that a significant amount of work you actually performed is included in the paper you can put your name on it. If you don't believe you made a contribution don't claim authorship. You could choose to write a review or a recommendation instead.
yes you , If you believe the corrections and additions you made are a significant contribution included in the paper .
No. There should be some contribution small or large. It can be editing, making small editorial changes, adding some references. But something should be there.
Actually I used to do this for clients. I used their commercial data so I listed them as the lead author - even though they didn't write anything. They were usually appreciative an they hired me back. It seemed like a win-win to me.
You can add your name only when if you contribute significantly throughout the publication process. Include authorship without efforts ultimately plays no positive impact in your career and it is also unethical and injustice with the people who worked for it.
Are you sure you didnt contribute? Perhaps you had an interaction with the author that inspired a major portion of the publication
Of course it shouldn't be like that, but when you're a young scientist, it's hard to avoid it. The worst, however, is when you participate in some scientific work, and you only hear words of thanks, but often not, because it is your duty.
Yes, this is a case of fraudulent authorship. Usually, these cases happened with political-research papers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publication