Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16023062

Getting around.

Bernard S Strauss
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

This essay is a response to a request from the Editor for a "historical reflection" relating to work on DNA repair from my laboratory. The writing has been an interesting exercise since it made me recall the people I have worked with and some of the things we found and the many we missed. In the course of the writing, an article was published in The New York Review of Books, which argued that there is a "pervasive dishonesty in the practice of science" relating to the authorship of scientific papers. It seemed to me that the events I was relating spoke to that charge and I appreciate the opportunity to comment.

Explore related subjects

AuthorshipDNA RepairEthics, ProfessionalHistory, 20th CenturyHumansScientific MisconductUnited StatesAutobiographyBiographyEditorialHistorical Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Bernard S Strauss. 2005-02-12. Getting around.. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dnarep.2004.12.010

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2006

Authorship versus "credit" for participation in research: a case study of potential ethical dilemmas created by technical tools used by researchers and claims for authorship by their creators.

The distinction between authorship and other forms of credit for contribution to a publication has been a persisting controversy that has resulted in numerous guidelines outlining the expected contributions of those claiming authorship. While there have been flagrant, well-publicized deviations from widely accepted standards, they are largely outnumbered by cases that are not publicity-worthy, and therefore remain known to only those directly involved with the inappropriate conduct. We discuss the definition and ethical requirements of authorship, offer a case example of the authorship debate created by a technical tool at our institution, and review parallels that support and dispute the authorship claims of our software developers. Ultimately, we conclude that development of a technical tool that enables data collection does not adequately substitute for contributions to study design and manuscript preparation for authorship purposes. Unless the designers of such a technical tool prospectively participate as a part of the project, they would not have an adequate understanding of the publication's genesis to defend it publicly and cannot be listed as authors. Therefore, it is incumbent upon project members to invite tool developers to participate at the beginning of such projects, and for tool developers to contribute to study design and manuscript preparation when they desire authorship listings.

Authorship↗