Title: Mistaken Claim of Authorship
Author: Matthew Wroblewski and Tristan McIntosh
Description: A researcher believes that they should be included as a co-author after critically reviewing a study proposal.
Keyword(s): Authorship
Case: Dr. Paris is asked to review a study proposal that Dr. Reagan has written. Dr. Paris reviews the study proposal, makes minor revisions, and emails the proposal back to Dr. Reagan. With Dr. Paris’s feedback, Dr. Reagan moves forward with conducting the study. After a period of two years the study is complete and two papers are written based on the findings from the study. Dr. Reagan submits both papers to a journal for review. After hearing from a colleague that Dr. Reagan submitted the two papers, Dr. Paris contacts Dr. Reagan and the journal editor expressing outrage for not being included as a co-author on the two papers for his work as an expert reviewer.
- Should Dr. Paris be included as a co-author? Why or why not?
- According to theInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors(ICMJE), under what criteria should authorship be based?
- What could the characters in this case have done differently to prevent this misunderstanding from happening?