Guest guest Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Dear Sir, Surely every person who has his/her name as author would not have contributed 100% in the manuscript. Is there some scoring of work done by which a person can be given credit of being an author? Usually multi-authorships are given in departments so that goodwill relations are maintained with colleagues, at times there are 'tit for tat' situations (if one colleague has not included another ones name, they repeat the same. Gift authorships are commonly given to spouses and near-dear relations. Can these be curtailed?AnupamaFrom: Vijay <drvijaythawani@...>Subject: Gift authorshipTo: netrum Date: Wednesday, 13 April, 2011, 11:36 AM Thanks Smita for coming in. I was getting bored by unilaterally sending my posts on NetRUM.The topic becomes interesting only when it is interactive. Gift authorship is widely prevalent in our medical colleges. One staff member actively does the work and others are usually "sleeping partners" who wake up to get the co-authorship. Most of the HODs also usually do nothing but are gifted co-authorship by the subordinates. The problem is more with the current system where caste scores higher over merit in getting the promotions and unfortunately incompetent teachers come to occupy the HOD's chairs. They usually thrive in forcing the juniors to continue giving them gift authorship, else there is trouble in survival! Vijay > > > From: Vijay <drvijaythawani@...> > Subject: scientific fraud in writing - 2 > netrum > Date: Tuesday, 12 April, 2011, 5:48 PM > > > Â > > > > In planning and protocol writing: > - Stealing ideas from students & colleagues; MS / grant applications / Ethics Committee approval applications received for review > - Copying / Duplicating experiment conducted elsewhere > > In conducting the experiments: > - Not doing the experiments at all (absolute, total fabrication/ falsification) > - Doing in a few animals / patients and inflating the numbers, reporting in greater numbers. > > In statistical analysis: > - Manipulating values to get significance. > - Data fudging to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. > > In reporting: > - Suppressing negative findings. > - Reporting only the findings that support the original hypothesis. > - Presentation of high profile results through the media prior to peer review. > - Not reporting ADRs/ AEs to support/ prop up the commercial product > > In publication: > - Plagiarism of results / article of others. > - Wrongful attribution of authorship. > - Duplication of publication. > - Omission of earlier original observations by others. > - Exclusion of others from legitimate authorship. > - Salami publication (piece meal publication like slicing the salami meat). > > Vijay > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Hi, Most of the standard journals provide a table in which against the name of each author you have to tick the appropriate columns which figure there, from protocol writing to manuscript writing. The headings vary from journal to journal. Individual involvement has to meet the minimum score for co-authorship. Merely principal/chief/first author gifting coauthorship to others is no more good. Accepted that every co-author cant contribute to the 100%, therefore you have co-authors so that sum total is 100%. But just because the person is spouse or guide or HOD and has no significant contribution to work, does not justify coauthorship. Scratching each other's back is common in gifting authorship and should not be done.People indulge in this because they themselves get one coauthorship as kickback! Vijay > > > > > > > > > From: Vijay <drvijaythawani@> > > > Subject: scientific fraud in writing - 2 > > > netrum > > > Date: Tuesday, 12 April, 2011, 5:48 PM > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > In planning and protocol writing: > > > - Stealing ideas from students & colleagues; MS / grant applications / Ethics Committee approval applications received for review > > > - Copying / Duplicating experiment conducted elsewhere > > > > > > In conducting the experiments: > > > - Not doing the experiments at all (absolute, total fabrication/ falsification) > > > - Doing in a few animals / patients and inflating the numbers, reporting in greater numbers. > > > > > > In statistical analysis: > > > - Manipulating values to get significance. > > > - Data fudging to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. > > > > > > In reporting: > > > - Suppressing negative findings. > > > - Reporting only the findings that support the original hypothesis. > > > - Presentation of high profile results through the media prior to peer review. > > > - Not reporting ADRs/ AEs to support/ prop up the commercial product > > > > > > In publication: > > > - Plagiarism of results / article of others. > > > - Wrongful attribution of authorship. > > > - Duplication of publication. > > > - Omission of earlier original observations by others. > > > - Exclusion of others from legitimate authorship. > > > - Salami publication (piece meal publication like slicing the salami meat). > > > > > > Vijay > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2011 Report Share Posted April 13, 2011 Dear Sir,Another aspect of this also needs a look. Sometimes after completing the PG ,students take away the research work which was initiated by the guide ,developed in all aspects although performed by the student. Student publish it in her/his name with spouse/friend as as coauthor without even a word of gratitude for the guide. OR the work dies its own death ones he/she gets a handsome job in some pharma company !Dr Sunil MahakalkarOn Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:21:16 , "Vijay" <drvijaythawani@...> wrote Hi, Most of the standard journals provide a table in which against the name of each author you have to tick the appropriate columns which figure there, from protocol writing to manuscript writing. The headings vary from journal to journal. Individual involvement has to meet the minimum score for co-authorship. Merely principal/chief/first author gifting coauthorship to others is no more good. Accepted that every co-author cant contribute to the 100%, therefore you have co-authors so that sum total is 100%. But just because the person is spouse or guide or HOD and has no significant contribution to work, does not justify coauthorship. Scratching each other's back is common in gifting authorship and should not be done.People indulge in this because they themselves get one coauthorship as kickback! Vijay > > > > > > > > > From: Vijay <drvijaythawani@> > > > Subject: scientific fraud in writing - 2 > > > netrum > > > Date: Tuesday, 12 April, 2011, 5:48 PM > > > > > > > > >  > > > > > > > > > > > > In planning and protocol writing: > > > - Stealing ideas from students & colleagues; MS / grant applications / Ethics Committee approval applications received for review > > > - Copying / Duplicating experiment conducted elsewhere > > > > > > In conducting the experiments: > > > - Not doing the experiments at all (absolute, total fabrication/ falsification) > > > - Doing in a few animals / patients and inflating the numbers, reporting in greater numbers. > > > > > > In statistical analysis: > > > - Manipulating values to get significance. > > > - Data fudging to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. > > > > > > In reporting: > > > - Suppressing negative findings. > > > - Reporting only the findings that support the original hypothesis. > > > - Presentation of high profile results through the media prior to peer review. > > > - Not reporting ADRs/ AEs to support/ prop up the commercial product > > > > > > In publication: > > > - Plagiarism of results / article of others. > > > - Wrongful attribution of authorship. > > > - Duplication of publication. > > > - Omission of earlier original observations by others. > > > - Exclusion of others from legitimate authorship. > > > - Salami publication (piece meal publication like slicing the salami meat). > > > > > > Vijay > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2011 Report Share Posted April 15, 2011 Hi Sunil, Good to see you interacting on netrum. Gift authorship is unethical, no matter what the case may be. We all have done it during our formative years but as we grow up, we should desist from doing it. Vijay > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; From: Vijay & lt;drvijaythawani@ & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; Subject: scientific fraud in writing - 2 > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; netrum > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; Date: Tuesday, 12 April, 2011, 5:48 PM > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt;  & nbsp; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; In planning and protocol writing: > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Stealing ideas from students & amp; colleagues; MS / grant applications / Ethics Committee approval applications received for review > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Copying / Duplicating experiment conducted elsewhere > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; In conducting the experiments: > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Not doing the experiments at all (absolute, total fabrication/ falsification) > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Doing in a few animals / patients and inflating the numbers, reporting in greater numbers. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; In statistical analysis: > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Manipulating values to get significance. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Data fudging to either prove or disprove the hypothesis. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; In reporting: > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Suppressing negative findings. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Reporting only the findings that support the original hypothesis. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Presentation of high profile results through the media prior to peer review. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Not reporting ADRs/ AEs to support/ prop up the commercial product > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; In publication: > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Plagiarism of results / article of others. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Wrongful attribution of authorship. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Duplication of publication. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Omission of earlier original observations by others. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Exclusion of others from legitimate authorship. > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; - Salami publication (piece meal publication like slicing the salami meat). > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; Vijay > > & gt; > > & gt; & gt; > > & gt; > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.