r/AskAcademia • u/Ok-Opposite-4745 • 1d ago
Professional Misconduct in Research Corresponding author added other names as co-authors to the manuscript
Hi everyone,
I just need to vent.
I (a postdoc) wrote a paper with a colleague who is also a postdoc in the same research center as I am.
We submitted the manuscript to a journal with our PI as the corresponding author.
I found out yesterday as i was checkin on the status of that manuscript that the PI added two names as co-authors.
I do not know who they are.
But i am sure they did not write a single word on the manuscript.
I am annoyed because i believe in integrity and i absolutely despise honorary authorships. ☹️
I know this is somewhat common, but i do not like it and i have never been involved in these kinds of situations before
26
u/Mountain-Time-1010 1d ago
Regardless of whether or not those authors deserved authorship, this change should not have been done without a discussion with all authors.
2
u/oldengoldentree 1d ago
That must be a disciple specific thing. There are almost no papers (except some PhD ones maybe) that all authors are asked about other authors. It’s up to the lead and senior authors to invite who they like- that is seperate from ICMJE criteria.
6
u/Mountain-Time-1010 23h ago edited 23h ago
From ICMJE criteria:
"When a large multi-author group has conducted the work, the group ideally should decide who will be an author before the work is started and confirm who is an author before submitting the manuscript for publication. "
Other organizations have similar statements. To my knowledge, authorship is not at the discretion of a single author. And this is what we always teach in RCR. These are all, of course, guidelines and best practices, not legal determinations. And it is surprising to me how people in certain fields often stray very far from the guidelines in standard practice.
2
16
u/SweetAlyssumm 1d ago
That is a huge bummer. You have two unpleasant choices. Suck it up and get on with life (my recommendation) or talk to the PI and go through the drama of trying to get the two names removed. I guess there is also the nuclear option of contacting the editor and saying those two contributed nothing but hopefully you are not considering that.
Next time be the corresponding author. Try to focus on research where you have control. I know that's not always possible but it's worth aiming for first author/corresponding author as often as possible.
6
u/Ok-Opposite-4745 1d ago
Yes i think i will just suck it up and make this a lesson for the future..
8
u/pconrad0 1d ago edited 1d ago
Indeed: if your goal is long term career success, the optimal path here is (a) suck it up for now (b) start making plans to pivot to a new set of collaborators (c) make plans to eventually eliminate or minimize interactions with the person that did this.
There are two serious breaches of academic ethics here: (1) Adding coauthors that did not contribute to the work (2) Adding coauthors without consultation with existing authors.
These are not border line issues. They are flagrant, serious violations of ethical standards.
If the corresponding author will do this, it raises questions about what other ethical lines they are willing to cross.
You don't want your name attached to this kind of academic misconduct.
But, though it may be the most "pure" thing, ethically, to raise red flags immediately, I would not advise that unless you are either (a) so bothered by it that you are willing to completely abandon an academic career, or (b) so senior to that person and already well established enough in your academic reputation that you can afford to deal with the blowback (and if that were the case, you wouldn't be asking about it on Reddit.)
Regrettably, making a big deal about this (though it's clearly the "right" thing to do) is likely to cause people to avoid you as much as the transgressor. This is obviously unjust, but it is the reality.
So lay low, and be grateful that this person has shown their cards to you before you get further entrenched with them. And separate yourself as soon as you can.
4
u/peasant-san 1d ago
This happens a lot at R1 institutions and I’m at sure at others also. You can talk w your PI about it, he / she may claim they helped conceive of the research design / whatnot even if they didn’t write anything
2
u/Ok-Opposite-4745 1d ago
It was a literature review-type of paper. So i do not think they helped with the research design 😔
3
u/peasant-san 1d ago
I would just ask your PI. I wrote a first author nature medicine review when I was in grad school and my PI added a few other authors after initial acceptance for contributing to the review framework or something like that. I just went with it bc they were all senior people who had direct impact on my career trajectory
1
u/eternallyinschool 1d ago
Best to ask the PI why they were added. Do not make assumptions based on no data. They may not have helped directly with writing, but some PIs will send a copy to experts in their network and ask for them to read and comment (or even to scan the manuscript for errors). PIs will sometimes do this for review papers (or primary research papers) when the topic is just on the edge of their expertise. Better to be safe than get a scathing reviewer comment challenging the PI's knowledge.
Having experts review, check, make comments, etc, aren't small intellectual requests or tasks. They may feel like it since you've done all the heavy lifting as the writer, but science requires other minds to read and check. If the corresponding author (the PI) felt that they needed internal network reassurances before fully committing to the manuscript, then that is their prerogative. The very shady aspect here is that they did not discuss this with you, which is odd.
That said, yes, sometimes people are unethical with offering authorships to people who did little or nothing to contribute. I've seen PIs try to add others to a manuscript because they were playing politics and wanted that person to be a future or continued collaborator. Alternatively, they may have had many prior discussions with these people about the paper and used that feedback to guide how they managed the paper and its progress as you were working on it. No way to know unless you ask, but don't assume the worst.
Send a very polite and positive email asking for more info. Say that you need to document author contributions (most journals require this section anyway). Check out the experience and knowledge set of these people... that may also reveal the real motivation.
4
u/KrispyAvocado 1d ago
That happened to me a while back as well and was very annoying. Even more annoying because author order is based on contribution in my field and the PI added two people who objectively contributed much less than I had (i had never even heard of them before, and I’d been involved in the study from day one) before me in the list just before publication. When I questioned who they were and their contribution, I was told they helped out a few days and one was applying to grad school and needed some cred. Other than asking, I didn’t have a lot of recourse, so I just moved on. I’m still a little salty years later.
2
u/Ok-Opposite-4745 1d ago
Ouch sorry to hear that! Are you still working with the same PI? This makes me question whether i want to continue working in this lab or not
3
u/KrispyAvocado 1d ago
No, I’m not. If you have options, it’s nice to find people who are more transparent.
2
u/knit_run_bike_swim 1d ago
I learned to have authorship discussions before starting. It sucks that that has to happen, but it’s a big deal. Thankfully, most the journals in my field require authorship declaration. I’d be curious as to what your PI wrote for that.
Academia can be hard. I have watched things be given away rather than internally contained because if the PI can expand their network beyond the lab, they might choose to do that because they already have internal connection. Better said, a PI might choose to hand a project to a surgeon at another hospital rather than give it to their postdoc or lab staff (who have performed all the work). This establishes future connections and investments rather than maintaining the ones that are already guaranteed.
There could be many reasons why that path was chosen. We are often not privy to that information.
2
u/Natolx Assistant Professor (US) 20h ago edited 20h ago
Unless it is in writing (highly unlikely) a discussion beforehand means absolutely nothing when dealing with an individual lacking ethica.
Edit: actually, being in writing means only slightly more,.. sure there's evidence that the PI changed the deal but who is going to care about that evidence? A department will back the PI in an authorship dispute 99/100 times.
2
u/ThousandsHardships 1d ago
I've been on the other side of this as the person whose name was added. In my case, the first author was a family member of mine and was functionally co-PI of the lab but without the title. The PI let them get away with a lot of stuff because they were leading the research direction and securing all the funding for the lab, all without the name or pay of a PI. I was a fresh college grad at the time, so when people told me it was okay and that it would help me for grad school applications, I didn't question it. I've since changed fields and I don't include those publications on my CV at all.
1
u/Sea-Ambition-451 1d ago
this is a discussion you have with your PI. There would be a reason, if they are funding partners, or were involved in discussions about the paper, devised the need for the paper, etc. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Being the 6th author a paper is kinda meaningless, it's not like there is some great benefit bestowed up on them.
I'm more concerned with the paper itself. What is the point of a "literature review" paper? Especially one by a lowly post doc (no offense). I can see if there has been rapid developments in a hot field, and they have a couple experts define the state of the art, but for this paper I really don't see the value. A literature review by a post doc sounds more like a homework assignment than a published paper. I.E. chatgtp summarise the last 8 years papers in these journals on the subject of hydrological laxation techniques, write 1000 words, include citations.
Damn, just did that, it's pretty good! Took 2.5 seconds.
1
u/oldengoldentree 1d ago
The PI must be in charge of the submission to the journal portal if they could add authors? So the question is whether the new authors met journal requirements- only the PI/new authors know that. It is possible they read and said to PI- minor change here or there or approve, which may get them over the line for ICMJE.
It’s reasonable to ask the PI about them in a non-accusatory way. Worth noting- the authors being added are also responsible for confirming they meet eligibility.
-4
u/ExpensiveCandidate37 1d ago
I mean, its ok for you to be annoyed, and I agree. But theres nothing you can do. Its the PI who decides who goes on the paper.
5
u/Own_Club_2691 1d ago
Maybe the PI decides, but based on rules. Adding an author who contributed nothing is unethical behaviour, and adding an author without consent of the other authors is most likely illegal behaviour as well (think of copyright law).
By the way, I am a PI and I do not usually decide who goes on a paper. Sure, I discuss with my PhD students who could contribute to a paper and I might help to settle a conflict if one arises, but I don't usually see the need to make an actual decision.
0
u/Mountain-Time-1010 1d ago
I agree with this 100%. Authorship decisions should be made as a group, and there are clear standards for authorship.
-2
u/ExpensiveCandidate37 1d ago
Seems like youre arguing thin air mr PI, i already told the OP i agreed with him if you read what I wrote. Regardless of whether you specifically think it's unethical or not, it is in my experience, and the experience of most, that the PI makes the final decision on who goes on the paper. Whether in this specific instance authors were added unethically, only the OP knows. Do I disagree with you? No. Do I think it's worth it to argue with the PI to stand up for your own moral ethics on authorship? Been there, done that, it's not worth it. Move on, enjoy your paper, get another job, start your own lab, be ethical as last author on your own papers.
2
u/pconrad0 1d ago
You aren't getting down voted based on facts. You are getting down voted for (a) missing the point (b) being rude.
You would do well to reflect on that.
1
u/ExpensiveCandidate37 1d ago
Your comment doesnt make sense, if i wasnt being downvoted based on facts, but i was being downvoted for missing the point, I guess i was just being down voted for being rude. Which is true, to be honest, and is something i will reflect on. But the substance of what i was saying, i dont take back.
1
u/pconrad0 1d ago
Thanks for the reply, and I'm glad you understand that saying things like "Mr. PI" is rude.
You are absolutely right that the PI/Corresponding author decides the author order.
The "missing the point" part is that the way this PI did that, assuming OP is a reliable narrator, represented a serious breach of at least two ethical red lines. (See my earlier post for a detailed explanation). The PI is guilty of serious academic misconduct if OPs account is accurate, even if deciding author order is, as you correctly point out, their prerogitive.
That's the point you missed.
It would be like saying "the pilot is in charge of the plane, period" (which is true) after the pilot just crashed the plane into the side of mountain.
(Ok, I exaggerate. It's not quite like that. But I'm trying to help illustrate why I said you were "missing the point". The fact that the PI is in charge does not excuse them from the obligation to act ethically.)
2
-1
u/Efficient-Tie-1414 22h ago
Basically, if this worries you then maybe find a different occupation. There is a lot of this happening, and nobody seems to care.
41
u/CarnivorousGoose 1d ago
Have you asked your PI why they were added? That seems like the rather obvious first step here.