One of the commonest queries to the 21 Group is about contested authorship. Politics around paper authorship is particularly an issue in STEM subjects where collaborations are the norm, less so in the humanities. Queries usually come from students & postdocs. This is a typical query:
I’m seeking advice on an issue I experienced
I was the first author on a paper (as agreed by the supervisor). I did most of the work, I completed the final version of the manuscript (analysis, write-up etc). However, my supervisor terminated my contract, removed my name from the paper and has taken the credit for the work, despite not directly contributing to it.
Are there steps I can take to address this situation?
This is a reasonably clear-cut example. The postdoc did enough to warrant authorship and was the agreed first author before the relationship with the supervisor broke down. Complete removal as a co-author seems unfair and may even have been an act of spite or retaliation.
There are two possible steps for recourse, though only one is likely to be productive.
First, if the paper has been submitted to a journal, then write to the Editor. Many journals now have protocols for authorship (and perhaps all should). For example, medical journals often state:
Authorship credit should be based on the following:
- substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;
- drafting the article or substantively contributing to revisions in intellectual content;
- final approval of the version to be published;
- agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All those designated as authors must meet all four criteria for authorship
If you can demonstrate to the journal editor that you may have fulfilled the criteria for authorship, then processing of the paper will be put on hold while the journal investigates. In our experience, this almost always happens if the journal has a good reputation in the field. We do know of examples in which papers have been withdrawn in these circumstances, or authorship lists have been corrected.
Secondly, you can complain to your head of department or institute. If you make a formal complaint, this will kick-start an investigation. (In principle, you can also complain to your Funding Agency, but they will almost always tell you to use your university or research institute’s complaints procedure). Here, you should be under absolutely no illusions. The supervisor is much more valuable and influential than any postdoc or graduate student. Any investigation will simple exonerate your supervisor. We recommend that you still complain, but it is best to have no naive dreams about fairness of outcome.
The are also of course less clear-cut cases.
Perhaps you helped take some exploratory data that was not used in the final paper. Perhaps you participated in one or two discussions and contributed to the general direction of the work without further involvement. Was it ethical for the supervisor to exclude you from further data collection and analysis or to not involve you fully in future discussions and developments? Perhaps not. Does this mean you should be an author on the paper? Also perhaps not, though a different supervisor might have made a different decision and behaved more generously and inclusively during the project.
In such less clear-cut cases, given the power hierarchies in academia, there might not be much you can do to protest your exclusion from a paper. You should certainly present your argument to your supervisor as to why you feel you should have been included. It may be that there is a perfectly good reason, or it may be that there isn’t. If this is unsuccessful, we normally don’t recommend taking it much further. Depending on your supervisor’s character, persisting could jeopardize your academic career. Some battles, especially as a vulnerable graduate student or postdoc, may not be worth the fight — even if you may rightly feel aggrieved. Given the intransigence of most university Human Resources departments, any battle will be grotesquely time-consuming — and an early-career researcher generally can’t afford such waste of time.
6 Comments
Marie · 5 January 2025 at 22:04
I was seriously bullied when I worked as an academic in the Engineering department. The bullying came from the very top of the hierarchy. I became so ill because of all the stress that I took a period of sick leave. I then left the university, taking up an appointment elsewhere.
I then found academic papers plagiarising my research were being published with the university’s approval by my former colleagues. I complained to the university and its HR department offered mediation. (I should add that the university is famous for the corruption of its HR department).
Mediation means the university takes no responsibility. The university should have halted these publications while they investigated.
Paula Vennells instituted mediation in the Post Office Horizon scandal so that effectively the problem was kicked down the road and no redress was ever offered. We all know how this ended.
It’s reasonable to expect a more proactive stance from a university, driven by its commitment to upholding academic integrity.
Anon · 7 January 2025 at 16:45
It would be lovely if mediation actually worked, but the general consensus from those who have been through a mediation process with universities is that mediation (perhaps “manipulation” or “Machiavellianism” might be better terms?) usually benefits the institution over anything else and hardly, if ever, addresses the root cause of the grievance raised.
It is often just another way of silencing a target because of the power differentials between an individual and an institution, which can obviously leverage far more resources than a single person. Like barristers, mediators can be mercenary and bought by institutions. It’s also very convenient in the sense that it allows the institution to control the narrative, and since it happens behind closed doors, there’s never any public scrutiny or accountability.
Sadly, mediation is essentially a rigged game for the target and often an NDA in everything but name. For the university departments that engage in it, it just leads to further problems down the road, as these institutions double down in denial and never actually confront the problem of their toxic organizational cultures. As a result, more people are damaged, and it becomes an endless cycle of abuse until it finally blows up as a public scandal.
It seems (in my opinion) that the most effective way for institutions to address issues is to publicly acknowledge that there have been past or present problems and to publicly apologize, while also halting attempts to control the narrative, suppress information, or retaliate against whistleblowers.
TigerWhoCametoET · 6 January 2025 at 09:40
I would get that to many people, especially outside of academia, taking someone’s name off a paper must seem like a very small thing.
In my view, though, this kind of thing is really a ‘red flag’ – it tells you how a person is prepared to treat those in a more vulnerable position when they think they will get away with it. When persons (and organisations) do this, it opens the door to more systematic forms of abuse.
Anonymous · 7 January 2025 at 23:27
Historically, maybe—but the Magdalen Connolly case, along with the media attention and public outcry it generated, as well as the reputational damage to Cambridge, clearly shows that the public does care about plagiarism and is outraged by abusive environments within academia.
Methinks there will be plenty more public outrage as the year unfolds across the entire sector. Universities and institutions that enable, or have enabled, systemically abusive environments are the ones on the ropes—and everyone knows it.
CopyKitten · 9 January 2025 at 20:45
There are now 8 cases of documented plagiarism by William O’Reilly (the CopyCat Don) on the Pubpeer site – the latest is
https://pubpeer.com/publications/B69F72C58BCFEE1C7009D6530D2C16
Anon · 11 January 2025 at 04:41
Wrong! Cite again!
Wrong! Cite it again!
If ye don’t credit yer fekin’ source, ye can’t claim that paper as yer writin’! (Ah, but I can…)
Wrong! Cite that paper again!
How in the name of bloody Johannes Kepler can ye claim it’s yers if ye don’t credit yer fekin’ source?
♫ We don’t need no plagiarized papers,
We don’t need no stolen work!
No psychopathic idea thieves and bully harassers in our lecture halls,
Hey! Oxbridge, leave those undergrad whistleblowers alone! ♫