Moore Authorship Model proposal

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search

UPDATES

1. We agreed it would be a good idea to circulate draft outlines to the group to invite people that want to contribute to the level of an author as discussed below.

2. Draft manuscripts may be circulated as well to discuss authorship.

Below is a starting place for a discussion on how we will handle authorship for the iSEEM project.

Authorship order

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0050018

The “first-last-author-emphasis” norm (FLAE). In many labs, the great importance of last authorship is well established. We suggest that the first author should get credit of the whole impact, the last author half, and the credit of the other authors is the impact divided by the number of all authors.

Notes from Green and Pollard discussion: Order of effort from the front. Reverse order of effort from the back for PIs (here PI means primary supervisor - which PI contributed most to the work of the lead author)


Who should be an author?

http://www.yale.edu/eeb/post/authorship.htm

1) If you find yourself saying "I could not have produced this paper without Dr. X or graduate student Y" because they brought to the project a unique and indispensable skill, perspective, or data set then they should be a coauthor. If many other people could have provided the same skill, perspective, or data then they may not necessarily merit being an author. If their role was not unique then see point 2.

2) If a person had a (significant) role in three of the five following criteria they should be a coauthor. These criteria fit an empirical project best, but are generally applicable for theoretical research. (Modified from a source of unknown origin)

a) Formulating the initial idea. This can be very hard to judge so it is best to be generous with these criteria.

b) Planning/facilitating the research. May include figuring out how to collect data, outlining a modeling approach, writing/getting grants to fund the work, providing key equipment, etc

c) Doing the research. Includes collecting data, coding a model, or working through tricky math.

d) Analyzing the data. May include database manipulations, statistical and graphical analysis, or providing new insights that derive from the results.

e) Writing and publishing the results. This could include writing some section(s) of the manuscript, providing extensive editorial comments, etc.


Notes from Green and Pollard discussion: Coding something small that the person borrowing could have easily done in a few hours does not constitute a significant role. Sitting in on conference calls might fall into category a and b.


Other

http://www.hms.harvard.edu/integrity/authorship.html

All authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version. If an author does not respond to feedback request on manuscript they can be removed.

One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an in-depth understanding of every part of the work.

This primary author should assure that all authors meet basic standards for authorship and should prepare a concise, written description of their contributions to the work, which has been approved by all authors. This information should be included in the publication.