Publishing dissertation--authorship questions

[kedmonkey]

---

Members don't see this ad.

I have two questions regarding authorship on publishing my dissertation data. First some background.

One of my dissertation committee members is the PI on the research project because he is an attending at the institution which IRB approved the research. I have done all the paperwork for the protocol and all the data collection/analysis. We have presented some preliminary data at a conference where I was listed as second author.

The format of dissertation at my program is as two separate papers, one a lit review, one a research article. I of course have written these completely on my own.

My questions:
Once my dissertation is defended (hopefully before the summer!!), if I publish the research article do I include the PI as an author (or any other committee members for that case)?

If I submit my paper to a conference prior to having defended, should I include the PI as an author.

Is there a politic way to tell this person I am submitting without including them?

Thanks!

 

[jnine]

Good luck with this one!

Having not been through this situation and lacking all the details, all I can say is I think your PI probably expects to be included on any publications. As you probably know, authorship is sometimes political and granted to people who make zero contribution to the work.

 

[krisrox]

I would lean toward inclusion, too. I like to be generous with my authorships as well. Make sure to run everything by all your authors, though, before you submit.

 

[irish80122]

Read over the APA's guidelines on authorship. Based on what you are saying, I would vote that your PI does NOT deserve authorship on the project, and submitting with them on the paper may be an ethical violation on your part.

It isn't a comfortable situation, and people are added to papers all the time. It often is the easy way out, but in my opinion, it isn't worth violating our ethics.

Perhaps consider sending your PI the APA ethics and say that you would like to have them on the paper, but to meet your ethical obligation, he/she would need to edit the paper, write part of it, etc. Then it is up to your PI. He/she can do what is required to be a part of the research, or they can opt out. It is better to give the option than tell someone that they are being left off a paper.

I hope that helps!

 

[kedmonkey]

I am thinking that those of you saying to include may be right. For further clarification... the PI is an MD who had some money set aside for research and gave me the open door to do what I would with it. But of course he did give me the okay and approved my ideas.

Also, my advisor has done some editing of my proposal and most likely will for the dissertation itself as well.

So I'm thinking of listing Me, Advisor, then PI as authors.

Thanks all for your input.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

definitely include. . .it would be stupid not to.

Further, you may be taking a bit too much credit here. . .meaning, you didn't likely generate the idea + analyses for this project out of thin air; they've probably read and discussed the paper with you from proposal to implementation.

This.

It would be a hard sell to NOT include them as an author. If you were considering whether or not to include an outside stats consultant, that would be a different discussion.

 

[JockNerd]

definitely include. . .it would be stupid not to.

Further, you may be taking a bit too much credit here. . .meaning, you didn't likely generate the idea + analyses for this project out of thin air; they've probably read and discussed the paper with you from proposal to implementation.

Definitely this, at least for the adviser. I can't see how you wouldn't include the adviser. As for the other committee members, only if they input something substantive.

I would lean toward inclusion, too. I like to be generous with my authorships as well. Make sure to run everything by all your authors, though, before you submit.

It's not ethical to throw around authorships--everyone should be contributing something unique and substantive to be an author.

 

[Ollie123]

I would absolutely include the PI and your advisor as co-authors. Particularly if the PI provided the funds for the study, provided you with access to the population, and helped develop the study idea in the first place. For other committee members it depends what their role is. There are many ways to "earn" authorship, and not all involve contributing to the writing itself (though running it by them before publishing is always a good idea).


One tricky aspect of this is medical settings versus psychology departments. Med centers traditionally take a much more team-based approach to research and will frequently have longer author lists. While I agree with JN that authors should not be added carelessly, APA Ethics seems overly rigid in my eyes and does not mesh well with the approach in other fields. I'd argue that being somewhat flexible in the interest of doing translational/transdisciplary work is better than rigid adherence to what APA says. Obviously this does not mean adding the entire administrative body, the janitor, and every undergrad who entered data or did a phone screen, but APA isn't going to sanction you for including the PI who provided you with the equipment and labspace you needed, etc.. Even if they did, it probably be less harmful for your career than burning bridges with colleagues😉

 

[deadmau5]

++^ what Ollie said.

also the thesis/dissertation is not going to be accepted as one huge article. it will have to be re-written in at least some aspect.

you will definitely have to work it into something presentable to a journal. this will probably involve your supervisor/PI helping you, and thus, he/she should be on the paper.

either way, the PI has probably invested time, funding, etc. something that reads: Drex (2000), doesn't look more prestigious than Drex & Hex (2000) or Drex, Hex, & Text (2000).

 

[Ollie123]

either way, the PI has probably invested time, funding, etc. something that reads: Drex (2000), doesn't look more prestigious than Drex & Hex (2000) or Drex, Hex, & Text (2000).

Indeed, at least in my area, solo-authored papers are viewed negatively. When it comes to things like tenure, promotion, etc. institutions want to see longer author lists - particularly when it shows evidence of collaboration across departments or areas. A faculty member who only put out solo-authored papers would probably be in trouble...not to mention the fact that very few meaningful research studies can be done well without involvement from others. Five minutes flipping through the big journals and it is usually pretty clear that the most groundbreaking research involves multiple people from various fields working together on a project.

 

[robinsena]

I would include the PI. I am assuming you'll have first authorship on your article if it's published? I think the authorship rank is more important in this case than who is included in the paper or not.

Also in a similar case for my masters I asked my PI via email politely to update them on my masters status, my interest in publishing the manuscript and whether they would like to be included as an author. It may seem unusual but I've heard of an instance where a PI turned down authorship on a poster. So it never hurts to ask.

You never know when having another name on your article will help you. I think people assume that sharing authorship is bad... but I don't necessarily think that's true.

P.S. I'm biased and favor the medical team-model of publication, so you can take everything I say within that context. 😉

 

[irish80122]

definitely include. . .it would be stupid not to.

Further, you may be taking a bit too much credit here. . .meaning, you didn't likely generate the idea + analyses for this project out of thin air; they've probably read and discussed the paper with you from proposal to implementation.

It would be a hard sell to NOT include them as an author. If you were considering whether or not to include an outside stats consultant, that would be a different discussion.

I greatly respect some of these posters, but I must politely disagree

First, the PI IS NOT the advisor:

For further clarification... the PI is an MD who had some money set aside for research and gave me the open door to do what I would with it. But of course he did give me the okay and approved my ideas.

As I read it, it sounds like the PI provided some funds and access to the population as well as gave a general OK. The PI did not provide a conceptual contribution (as it reads). That doesn't mean he/she can't be included, but I would ask the PI to contribute to the project other than enabling it in order to warrant authorship.

The APA ethics guidelines (8.12) state "Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as a department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publication are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or an introductory statement."

It is true that your study could not have been done without access to the population, but that isn't a scientific contribution in my mind. Perhaps it is a "professional" contribution, as that is not operationally defined. However, it seems to me that this opens up Pandora's box. I am doing a study in the Department of Family Medicine and we had to have the chair sign off. We literally could not do the study without that signature. Is that enough for authorship? I think not. The hard part is that the PI contributed money, but it still isn't a conceptual contribution.

While I agree with JN that authors should not be added carelessly, APA Ethics seems overly rigid in my eyes and does not mesh well with the approach in other fields. I'd argue that being somewhat flexible in the interest of doing translational/transdisciplary work is better than rigid adherence to what APA says.

Again, I politely disagree. These our our ethics! We can't ignore them because we view them as too restrictive. We can work to modify them, but as long as they are our ethical code, APA members (and if your state has adopted them, psychologists) are bound to follow them.

 

[JockNerd]

As I read it, it sounds like the PI provided some funds and access to the population as well as gave a general OK. The PI did not provide a conceptual contribution (as it reads). That doesn't mean he/she can't be included, but I would ask the PI to contribute to the project other than enabling it in order to warrant authorship.

If the sample would have been difficult or impossible to get without the PI, or if the data were collected as part of another project by the PI, I think the PI certainly deserved to be author. I agree with JS that the OP may be overstating his or her independence on the conceptualization of the project; I'm a bit confused about why this PI was on the project at all if his or her only responsibility was signing an IRB.

 

[PsychApps2009]

The APA ethics guidelines (8.12) state "Psychologists take responsibility and credit, including authorship credit, only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed. Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as a department chair, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publication are acknowledged appropriately, such as in footnotes or an introductory statement."

I think it is good to keep our ethics code in mind but normally providing the funds for a study [as well as access to the population] is NOT a minor contribution (i.e., it is a substantial contribution if, as JN points out, the study could not have been accomplished without them).

PS - I would also be inclined to ask the actual advisor what his opinion is on the matter and if he feels the PI should be included. If he doesn't, ask advice on how to handle the situation appropriately (i.e., offer PI chance to edit the paper? etc.). If he does, ask the advisor what authorship position he prefers first. Sometimes the last authorship position is preferred by established advisors (don't automatically assume that OP, OP's Advisor, and the PI last is the ideal order in this situation).

 

[Ollie123]

Again, I politely disagree. These our our ethics! We can't ignore them because we view them as too restrictive. We can work to modify them, but as long as they are our ethical code, APA members (and if your state has adopted them, psychologists) are bound to follow them.

I'm not certain we completely disagree on the issue. The APA Ethics code is pretty vague. Like I said, I'm not suggesting that everyone in the building gets thrown on the pub, but I am saying that when it is a grey area, I would err on the side of inclusion. I don't consider providing the funds, patients, access, etc. to be small contributions.

I certainly wouldn't include a department chair who doesn't know anything about the study, but this does not seem like the case here. APA would probably want people to behave in a more rigid manner, but the reality is that it is going to create serious problems for anyone who does research beyond the "Give out papers to Psy101 students" type.

For now, it is written in a vague way (which is what makes it an ethical issue), and there are no hard and fast rules for what constitutes substantive contribution. I'm recommending a more liberal interpretation than some - one that would probably generate a lot of impotent discussion amongst APA - but I don't think it is necessarily outside the bounds of the APA ethics code. A conservative interpretation would severely limit our relationships and ability to work with other fields. I would feel differently if 1) I thought APA was worth respecting, and 2) I thought they would change something just because it was a problem. Given that they won't, I'm recommending a liberal-within-reason approach to interpretation given that I don't see any viable alternatives.

Edit: JN makes a good point. Last author may be preferred to mid-authorship - most of the faculty I work with take that approach...its reserved for the most "senior" person - typically the person running the lab.

 

[viceroy]

Read over the APA's guidelines on authorship. Based on what you are saying, I would vote that your PI does NOT deserve authorship on the project, and submitting with them on the paper may be an ethical violation on your part.

It isn't a comfortable situation, and people are added to papers all the time. It often is the easy way out, but in my opinion, it isn't worth violating our ethics.

Perhaps consider sending your PI the APA ethics and say that you would like to have them on the paper, but to meet your ethical obligation, he/she would need to edit the paper, write part of it, etc. Then it is up to your PI. He/she can do what is required to be a part of the research, or they can opt out. It is better to give the option than tell someone that they are being left off a paper.

I hope that helps!

Sorry Irish, but this is the worst advice I've read in a while.
OP - this is a time to build bridges, not burn them. You already know that the issue is delicate and political. You should also know that as a junior person in the field you little to no idea how it is actually done. I'd love to see the face of a PI sent the APA ethics guidelines with a note implying they should do more to earn an authorship. This is a great one!
Include, include, include! Don't be a fool.