By L. Kunkel and R. Fischbach, Harvard Medical School, 1993

As a graduate student, Camilla Pedroza worked closely with her advisor/mentor and lab chief, Dr. Kisaki, for four years on a project developing a diagnostic test for lupus. As part of the study, she performed diagnostics for physicians, particularly Dr. Browne, who sent tissue samples from his patients to her to be tested. Shortly before her project was completed, her husband was relocated to an excellent position in their homeland, Spain. She hastily put together the material she had collected over the years which was enough to pass as her thesis. During her final meeting with Dr. Kisaki, he promised to complete her project and get it published.

Jonathan Sand has been a post-doc in the Kisaki lab for a year and a half and has little to show for his time in the lab. Dr. Kisaki feels that Camilla's project is ideal for Jonathan because it is so close to complection and would allow him to build upon it for future projects. Within three months, thanks to Camilla's excellent write-ups of her methods, Jonathan has been able to replicate several of Camilla's experiments and does some important controls.

Noting the progress, Dr. Kisaki asks Jonathan to write the first draft of the paper as he now has access to all the data. Dr. Kisaki suggests including a few of Jonathan's figures which replicated Camilla's work. Dr. Kisaki is relieved and gratified that at last, with Jonathan's efforts, the project has been successfully concluded.

Hearing that the work is close to publication, Dr. Browne calls Dr. Kisaki to remind him of their original agreement which established that he should be included as an author on this paper in return for furnishing the tissue samples.

Meanwhile, Jonathan passes in the first draft of the manuscript with his name as first author. In considering the position of authors, Jonathan believes that he should be listed first because these are his data being presented, he prepared the figures, and he wrote the paper. Camilla will be included as an author.

Dr. Kisaki sends the draft off to Camilla, who recognizes that the data are no different than those included in her thesis. She sends an immediate response to Dr. Kisaki requesting that she be first author. And she also objects to Dr. Browne being included as an author because (1) he was one of many physicians who sent in tissue samples; (2) she was performing a service for him; and (3) he contributed no intellectual effort to the project. She also questions the inclusion of the department head, Dr. Carson, as an author despite that being the custom of the department. Dr. Kisaki realizes that he has a lot of decisions to make. One solution he considers is dividing the manuscript into two submissions so that both Camilla and Jonathan can each be first author on one paper.

Discussion questions:

1. Does the person who writes the paper naturally assume first authorship? Does Camilla have a legitimate claim for first authorship? What does first authorship imply?

2. As Camilla's advisor/mentor, should Dr. Kisaki have discussed with her: (1) plans for the publication of the results of her dissertation research; (2) her role and responsibilities in the preparation of the manuscript(s); (3) commitments and arrangements for attribution for investigators who supplied tissue samples/reagents for her studies?

3. As a departing student, what role should Camilla have played in initiating discussions relevant to the dissemination of her work product? Are the results of Camilla's thesis project her intellectual property?

4. Students and postdocs come and go in a lab. How do you decide, in a transient setting, who contributed the most to a project and has a subsequent claim to be an author? Is Jonathan guilty of intellectual plagiarism? How does the departed grad student, or postdoc, retain an ongoing role in absentia in subsequent research efforts?

5. Whose responsibility is it to determine authorship? What about the role of the mentor in deciding who should be first author, especially in settings where someone left the lab without completing the project? When should these decisions be made? What are the pressures faced by postdocs who write the first draft in determining placement and inclusion of authors? How much weight do Camilla and/or Jonathan have in these decisions?

6. Criteria for authorship have been hotly debated. The study could not have been conducted without the contribution of Dr. Browne and the others who sent in the tissue samples. So what claim does Dr. Browne have to be an author? What criteria do you set for people like Dr. Browne and others who contribute samples?

7. Many journals now request that authors state explicitly that they contributed to the publication. Dr. Browne, who has never read the manuscript, nonetheless believes strongly that he contributed to the project and would in good conscience sign any compliance form. How do you resolve this with the intent of the journal?

8. The NIH Guidelines do not recognize the concept of "honorary authorship", yet there can be compelling interests to continue this practice. Discuss the implications of honorary authorship.

9. What about accountability? Given that there are five authors listed on the paper, who is ultimately responsible for validity of the data and information contained in the publication? What is someone challenges the validity down the road?

10. "Salami publication" or publication of the "least publishable unit" is growing in frequency. Why is there concern about "republished" or duplicate publications?