Authorship: Title and subTitle BreakThe Coin of the Realm, The Source of Complaints FREE

CREDIT for one's research, ultimately through authorship, is extremely important for a successful scientific career. It affects future research funding, promotions, and recruitment opportunities. If allocation of credit is poorly done, future research resources may in turn be misallocated. Authorship problems have received considerable attention in medical literature,^{1 - 2} although most of the evidence has been anecdotal.³

Guidelines are available to help determine how attribution should be acknowledged.^{4 - 6} However, they are applied ineffectively. According to a recent survey by Jones,⁷ only 25 (21%) of 119 schools reported having their own authorship policies. Most institutions provide formal grievance procedures when these issues arise, but the apprenticeship system that is used to educate medical scientists makes confrontation with better-established people a risky business, regardless of who is right.

As a confidential resource, the Ombuds Office for Harvard Medical School, Dental School, and School of Public Health, Boston, Mass, hears about many problems related to the ability to write about research. The office serves approximately 18000 faculty, staff, trainees, and students hired or appointed by the 3 schools. Created in 1991, it is a neutral, safe place to discuss work and academic-related problems informally in order to help resolve conflicts.

Issues emerge through telephone calls, office visits, e-mail messages, and spontaneous meetings. The office uses a simple checking system to keep track of sexual harassment, discrimination, authorship, and intellectual property and other career management issues. When problems fall into more than 1 category, each category receives a check mark. We also record the caller's sex, ethnicity, and job or academic position and where the problem occurred. We measure reports, not incidence, and our methods are not intended for formal research. In many cases, we are able to confirm the validity of the complaint. In some instances, we mediate between the parties. The apparent trends we have observed over 6 years may be of interest to the medical research community.

The following are some typical authorship issues brought to the office: (1) "Though listed as an author, I never reviewed the article, saw the reviewers' feedback, or signed off on the final document," (2) "I was promised first authorship when I completed a project. When the work was done, and without informing me, the principal investigator added the work of someone else who was made first author," (3) "A fellow is demanding first author position but the contribution was primarily in implementing the experiments, not in creating the design or writing," and (4) "After I left my lab, I got no credit for the projects and articles that used my work."

From the 1991-1992 through the 1996-1997 academic years, queries relating to authorship have grown as a percentage of the total complaints made to the Ombuds Office from 8 (2.3%) to 59 (10.7%) (Figure 1). This also represents a growth from 0.06% to 0.33% as a percentage of the population served by the office including all faculty, staff, trainees, and students.

From 1994 to 1995 through 1996 to 1997, 61 (46%) of the 133 authorship issues were from faculty and 45 (34%) were from postdoctoral fellows, interns, or residents. Of these issues, 70 (53%) originated from female complainants and 63 (47%) from males. However, the female complaints represented an average of 0.35% of their smaller average population while male complaints represented only 0.20% of theirs.

The total non–US citizen population of faculty, staff, trainees, and students is not available. However, cases including acknowledgment through publication have grown from 4% of the non–US citizen complaints in 1991-1992 to 21% in 1996-1997.

The increase in reported authorship disputes has been far greater than the increase in either total issues brought to the Ombuds Office or in the size of the population served. It occurred despite the Harvard Medical School's school-wide guidelines. Females report more difficulties than males. Non–US citizens may have similar problems coping with the credit assignment system.

With the absence of other similar published evidence, it is only a supposition that similar phenomena are occurring at other medical research institutions. My suggestions reflect an assumption that these problems are widespread in the "culture of credit."³ Some suggestions as to what would reduce the incidence and impact of authorship conflict are as follows: