Re: "junior" authorship

Hilary Cantwell <hilary[_at_]deakin.edu.au> wrote:
>
> I've come across the concept of "jumior" authorship, which seems to
> exist in the more scientific areas of research and writing.
>
> Person A does research, writes an article or thesis or book. Person B,
> usually more of an authority, might provide supervision and perhaps even
> funding - but might never put pen to paper.
>
> Then you see both Person A and Person B listed as authors on the
> published work - Person B usually taking second place - as "junior"
> author, as a credit for their involvement.
>
> It's interesting, because I've been involved in a situation where Person
> A decided he really hated Person B and refused to let Person B be
> acknowledged as "junior" author. Needless to say, there isn't a proper
> contract which sorts all this sort of thing out. And Person B didn't
> actually do any of the writing. So we've got the scientific community
> saying that this sort of thing goes on all the time, that it's standard
> practice - but it is a very dodgy practice, copyright-wise.
>
> Does this happen in the US as well??

Absolutely. The tradition evolved this way because US universities (the traditional source of scientific research) are under an obligation to make public their results, so they did not traditionally protect their ideas via patent or trade secret. Nevertheless, it is the ideas and the technical competence of the research that are valued by academics, not the expression of it.

Academic research in the US (at least in the lab sciences) is rarely done in isolation; most of it involves a great deal of intellectual interaction with peers, colleagues and superiors. The senior academic sometimes proposes the research concept which the junior then refines. These people might well qualify as co-inventors, but since patents were not traditionally filed, the publication became the record of the research and the only place to mention their contributions.

Thus the record of publication became the the basis for employment decisions, so it is not a system that will likely be altered in the near future, even though university patent practices have changed dramatically. And if A is unknown, it is often impossible to get published at all without adding the more distinguished name of B which serves as an authenticator of the reliability of the research work.

So, it is certainly true that scientific researchers are often blind to the legal definition of authorship. In fairness however, expression may have been contributed orally by other members of the research effort so including them may not always be inappropriate. And often the journal publication consists almost entirely of data and statements of fact which would not be copyrightable subject matter. Finally, there is rarely enough revenue from such publications to justify litigating these points which is another reason the practice continues unabated.

Diane Cabell, Esq.
http://www.mama-tech.com/

Fausett, Gaeta & Lund LLP
21 School Street, 3rd Floor
Boston, MA 02108 US
1.617.227.1600
http://www.fausett.com/ Received on Fri Jul 31 1998 - 13:20:12 GMT