Tags:
create new tag
, view all tags, tagging instructions
Return to Browse by

Return to RCR Case Studies

Please Comment on the Teaching Quality of the CASE

 

Please rate the CASE:

  • 5 stars = highest rating
  • 1 star = lowest rating
  • SCORE = average of all votes
Graph Rating
Score: 0, My vote: 0, Total votes: 0

EthicsCaseStudyForm edit

Title Replacing a First Author on a Second Submission
Long Title Replacing a First Author on a Second Submission
Contributor/Contact John Banja, PhD (jbanja@emory.edu)
Contributor Details John Banja, PhD
Director, Section on Ethics in Research
Atlanta Clinical and Translational Science Institute
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322
CTSA Emory
Case Study Provided David is a new postdoc in Dr. Goliathís lab. Upon Davidís arrival to the lab, Dr. Goliath assigned him a few experiments to firm up some results of a paper that had been rejected by a journal. These experiments had not been performed because the technician who was working on the project and was the rejected paperís first author had since left the lab. David was given a copy of the (rejected) manuscript to review and to assess what needed to be done for a second submission. After reading the paper, David felt that the quality of the writing was poor and that, along with including the results from the control experiments Dr. Goliath asked him to do, the manuscript needed to be completely re-written.
David expressed all this to Dr. Goliath, who agreed that David should take ownership of the paper and improve it. Upon completing and adding the results of the control experiments and then re-writing the original manuscript entirely, David re-submitted the paper without consulting the original author who had performed the bulk of the work of the original manuscript. The reviewers gave enthusiastic reviews of the re-submission and the paper was accepted with minor revisions.
Was it appropriate that David replaced the original author as first author? Was David in the wrong to have totally re-written the manuscript without the permission of the technician who had written the original (rejected) paper prior to leaving the lab? Should the technician have been informed about the changes to the manuscript prior to the new submission? Should the technician have been invited to comment on or contribute to the new submission?
Data Acquisition, Management, Sharing and Ownership Topics No Data acquisition_management_sharing and ownership Topics
Mentor and Trainee Responsibilities Topics
Scientific responsibilities of the mentor
Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship Topics
The significance of authorship,
Authorship assignment,
Inappropriate authorship practices,
Dealing with controversies that arise in authorship,
Poor publication practices
Peer Review Topics No peer review topics
Collaborative Science Topics
Working well with others,
Dealing with challenges in collaborative relationships,
The role of institutions in collaborative science
Research Misconduct Topics No research misconduct topics
Conflicts of Interest, Law and Policy Topics No conflicts of interest_law_and policy topics
Human Subjects No human subjects
Citation

URL http://www.actsi.org/areas/erks/ethics/index.html
RCR Keyword

Other RCR Keywords manuscript revision; manuscript rejection; manuscript resubmission; revision of another's work
Type of Case

Source for Topic Areas Du Bois, J., & Dueker, J. (2009). Teaching and Assessing the Responsible Conduct of Research: A Delphi Consensus Panel Report. Journal of Research Administration, 40(1), 49-70.
References

Other Visit the Allocating Credit tab at http://www.actsi.org/areas/erks/ethics/index.html to read an extended discussion of the case.
Topic revision: r4 - 28 Oct 2011 - 13:27:50 - MaryBanach
 
Copyright &© by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding CTSPedia? Send feedback