Group 3 – Benny, Tao, Ruth

“Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.”

 Indication of the quality of the paper  Merit when applying for a position  Who is responsible in case of misconduct Source: Good Research Practice: The Swedish Research Council’s expert group on ethics

 Piggy back on experienced authors  Increase knowledge and establish reputation  Assistance with writing and editing  Foster relationships with other researchers  Necessary in multi disciplinary projects  To get published  Opportunity to mentor younger researchers  Allow different perspective on the topic

 Wrongly assuming that you have the same idea as your co-author on the writing approach.  Waiting on your co-author to send you his or her parts.  Sorting out areas of disagreement in content and word-choice.  Sequence of authors on the paper

 Austin and Baldwin (1992)  Selected based on interests and skills  Define the division of labour  Guidelines should be established and agreed by all  Project must have a termination point

 I am certain that my coauthor is wrong on a part of the paper, however the coauthor does not realise this although pointed out. The author is an unknown researcher and the coauthor is known.

Write the paper myself Do nothingOverrule my coauthor MeCredit for workPositivePositive for the correct parts Positive ReputationPositive, good result. Negative, unethical according to Codex Positive if no one finds out Negative, wrong result, Unethical according to CUDOS Positive, Negative if coauthor spreads rumors. Ethical according to CUDOS Good MeritsPositivePositive if no-one finds out, or if error is small enough Positive

Write the paper myself Do nothingOverrule my coauthor CoauthorCredit for workNegativeSame as Me …. Reader/Other researcher Reading good papers PositiveNegative, or positive if the error is small Positive Writing correct results Has the opportunity to rewrite our paper without the error, essentially taking credit for our work.

 It would seem that the option to take is to "override my coauthor". Since in this way I would have a correct result, good opportunity for a career, and will be viewed more or less as an ethical researcher. I will further research, and in the long run feel good about myself. Besides I also further my coauthors merits, even though I might upset him/her.