Research Affairs Committee and Faculty Council Ombudsman Ad Hoc Committee

MCW Policy on Authorshipand Ombudsman Issue

The Women’s Faculty Council Seminar Series

May 2, 2006

Carol Everson, PhD and William Schmeling, MD, PhD

Topics

• Background on the Research Affairs Committee (RAC)

• Formulation and attributes of MCW’s policy on authorship

• Considerations for creating a position for an ombudsman at MCW

Responsibilities of the RAC

• Serve as a review and advisory board– Ethics in research– Scientific conduct

• Help formulate policy and guidelines for research matters

• Conduct scientific peer review– Traditional intramural seed and subsidy funding– Quadracci Memorial Fund for Stem Cell Research– Advancing a Healthier Wisconsin research initiative

RAC Members

Faculty-elected:Subra Kugathasan, MD

Pediatrics, GI (07)Brian Link, PhD

Cell Biology (06)Timothy McAuliffe, PhD

HPI Biostat (06)Michael Michalkiewicz, DVM, PhD

Physiology (07)Joan Neuner, MD, MPH

Medicine, GIM (08)Ann Rosenthal, MD

Medicine, Rheumatology (08)

Dean’s appointees:Carol Everson, PhD

Neurology (06)David Friedland, MD, PhD

Otolaryngology (08)Robert Fritz, PhD

Microbiology (07)John Kampine, MD, PhD

Anesthesiology (08)Ravi Misra, PhD

Biochemistry (06)

Ex officio:David Gutterman, MD

Students: Carla Meister (M-1), Ben Ringger (M-2), Linda Szema (M-3) Michael Clark (M-4), Jennifer Luebke-Wheeler (graduate student)

Historical Perspectives

• Faculty Council mandate to the Research Affairs Committee (RAC) to compose a policy

• RAC members discussed, argued, and vetted the policy limits and enforcement guidelines

• MCW legal staff in the Offices of the Dean revised the Procedure to Resolve Disputes

• Faculty Council overwhelmingly supported implementation

Purpose of the Policy on Authorship

• To identify, define, and make known the authorship practices condoned or endorsed by the Medical College of Wisconsin

Main objectives

• To give credit to whom credit is due for intellectual and academic contributions– The crux

• Resource allocation

• Assessment of productivity

• Recruitment opportunities

• Morale

• Avoid dilution of credit for achievements– Misrepresentation

Divergent views take issue with this policy

• Proprietary– ‘Is MCW going to be telling me what I can and cannot do by

telling me who I can and cannot list as an author?’

• Coerced– ‘If I don’t put his/her name on the paper I will not get the

animals/patients/reagents that I need to do my work.’

• Mistaken sense of what it means to be an author– ‘But so and so includes their technicians on manuscripts!’– ‘But I participated in that project last summer!’– ‘If I wasn’t working on another project, I would have been

working on this one. So, I deserve an authorship on this one, since the other one is not yet completed, and I need publications.’

Compromised PrinciplesBiomedical researchers were quizzed by journal editors:

• 38% - said they had co-authored with an undeserving author

• 37% of postdocs had been asked to list an undeserving author on their paper

Of these respondents

• 75% willing to list an undeserving author

Source: Eastwood et al., Sci Eng Ethics 2:89-114, 1996, as cited in Leash E. J Dental Research 76(3):724-7, 1997.

Main objectives

• To give credit to whom credit is due

• Avoid dilution of credit for achievements

NIH Intramural Program

At least two of the three boxes must be checked I participated in planning the experiments

described in this manuscript I performed some or all of the experiments I helped evaluate the data and write the paper.

The people who contributed to the studies described but who are not included as co-authors. Provide the reason for their exclusion: ______________

Policy for Authorship

Policy for Authorship on Scientific and Scholarly Publications

Effective Date: February 2002

Research and other scholarly publications, defined as articles, abstracts, presentations at professional meetings and grant applications, provide the main vehicle to disseminate findings, thoughts, and analysis to the scientific, academic, and lay communities. They represent an important factor in promotions, academic programs, and success in peer-reviewed grant applications. Authorship on research and other scholarly publications carries with it a large number of responsibilities for the planning, conduct and reporting of research results and the content and conclusions of other scholarly work.

The purpose of the following principles is to expressly define Washington University's policy on authorship of papers to safeguard this fundamental element of the scientific and scholarly process. This policy applies to authorship disputes of students, staff and/or faculty members.

1. Authorship should be restricted to those individuals who have met each of three criteria: (a) made a significant contribution to the conception and design or the analysis and interpretation of data or other scholarly effort, (b) participated in drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for content, and (c) approved the final version of the manuscript.

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical PublicationUpdated October 2005

Criteria for authorship

An author meets conditions 1, 2, and 3:1. Substantial contributions to the conception

and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data

2. Drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content

3. Final approval of the version to be published

Using authorships as a commodity or for payment is unacceptable

Trading chip for

• Material

• Information

• Research subjects

• Technological expertise

• Influence

• Devoting time

Honorary and Courtesy Authorships

• Several reasons these occur:– Thanks for support

– Provide greater credibility to results

– Increase chances of publication

•Inconsistent with these principles•Unacceptable

Acknowledgements, not authorships

Purely, solely, only, noteworthy:• Clinical or participating investigators• Collection of data• Donation of materials• Provided care for study participants• Acquisition of funding• General supervision of the research group• Writing support• General support (e.g., allocation of space) • Critical review of study

Order of Authorship

• No agreed upon meaning– Possibilities include

• Descending order of contributions

• Most experienced person last

• Lead writer last

• Lead writer first

• Left up to the authors to decide

Why persist with formulating a policy on authorship? Why not just let the journal editors handle it?

• Handle misunderstandings or grievances before journal editorial staff would be involved

• Limit abuse of junior colleagues

• Protect from unreasonable demands

– By and for both junior and senior colleagues

– E.g., “A postdoc is demanding first authorship but the contribution was primarily in implementing experiments, not in creating the design or writing…”

• Provide sense of proportion and confidence in the process

Summary for the Policy on Authorship

• Give credit where credit is due– Intellectual and academic contributions

• Convey the standards of the Medical College– Provide information– Take steps to safeguard integrity

• Policy does not condone authorships formed through bartering

• Policy acknowledges contributions

Dispute resolution on authorship and other matters

2. In the case of papers with multiple authors, the senior author (generally the first or last author) has the responsibility for: (a) including as co-authors all those who meet the three criteria defined in Part 1 of this Policy and excluding those who do not; and (b) obtaining from all co-authors their agreement to be designated as such, as well as their approval of the final version of the manuscript. Of course, any person can refuse to be a co-author if they elect to do so.

3. Co-authors assume full responsibility for all work submitted under their names and, as a co-author, acknowledge that they meet each of the three criteria for authorship as defined in Part 1 of this Policy.

4. Honorary or courtesy authorships are inconsistent with the principles of this Policy and, as such, are unacceptable.

Knowing, intentional or reckless violations of these principles are considered research misconduct as defined by the Washington University Research Integrity Policy and will be referred to the appropriate Committee on Research Integrity (CRI). The Research Integrity Policy can be found at: www.wustl.edu/policies/research.html.

The foregoing definitions do not deal with disputes regarding the order of authorship on papers. It is impossible for the University to define the order of authorship, nor would it be appropriate to develop any guidelines that should be used in agreeing upon this. Only the coauthors can make these informed judgments. Should disputes about the order of authors fail to be resolved, the chair or head of the department(s) should be consulted in an effort to resolve the dispute. Such complaints do not, in and of themselves, constitute research misconduct and, as such, they are not governed by the University Research Integrity policy.

Copyright 2000-2005, Washington University in St. Louis

Washington University Policy (con’d)

Dispute resolution

Past sequence:• Dept. Chair• Dean Dunn• Research Affairs

Committee

Proposed sequence:• Dept. Chair• Research Affairs

Committee• Dean Dunn