Situation
Oscar Martinez, a graduate student, was hired to code data and in doing his work he identified a code that was ambiguous, and without discussing the matter with Nick Manson, the project director, refined the code. Subsequently, Manson wrote a paper using the refined code and gave a copy to Martinez. On reading the paper and seeing that the variable whose measurement he refined was the central idea of the paper, Martinez informed the project director of his refinement and asked for authorship. Manson disagreed, saying that acknowledgment of the student’s contribution in a footnote was sufficient recognition, since he brought in the basic ideas and analyzed the data.
Questions
- How much contribution and of what kind merits authorship?
- Does Manson have the right the right to decide authorship credits? Does the student have a claim to authorship? Is his acknowledgment in a footnote sufficient for his contribution?
- Should the project director and student jointly seek and/or separately advice? If so, from whom? From faculty and graduate students who have published?
Discussion
“In general, it is best to have frank and open discussions about the division of credit early in the process. This can help prevent later difficulties.” This is the crux of this ethical dilemma. Martinez should have discussed with Manson the refinement of a specific code and discussed with him the significance of this variable for the study. The problem with this surface assessment is that Martinez is a graduate student, perhaps not versed in protocol regarding publication between student and professor. He was likely unaware that his refinement of one code was going to have such a significant impact on the project, and had he known this, would have discussed earlier with Manson the possibility of publication.
As a professor and someone who should know ethical protocol for work with graduate students, Manson should have consulted Martinez earlier in the process. He should have spoke with him about why he refined this code, what impact this has on the work, and perhaps invited Martinez to help write the paper. Despite the fact that Martinez did not write the paper in question, his refinement of the code was the integral piece of this work. Martinez should discuss this matter with Manson and the Department Chair in a conference meeting, in the hopes of working out a mutually acceptable agreement regarding authorship.
