Hi Theresa, in our situation we were just going to asterisk the name on the title page and state "deceased". I considered this person both a friend and colleague, my coauthors are his former major professor and his former PhD student, so I think we have a good handle on what he would have wanted. In authorship matters I have always erred on the side of generosity, while still adhering to the code that authorship should occur only when the contribution is substantive. And I draw a distinction between "necessary" and substantive given your case. Your paper clearly would be different if you didn't include the data, so that clearly is a substantive contribution, but your data could be published on its own so it's not a necessary contribution.
In my experience your situation is unusual (but may become more common as the "Sputnik generation" hits their 80's) and clearly there is no one ethical nor correct answer. Personally, I would add the investigator as a coauthor and note that they are "incapacitated". I would also likely contact the family because sometimes people with dementia have periods of lucidity, but even if he/she isn't lucid, the family would give you insights, as will your coauthor, his/her former student, on what the investigator would have wanted. I think that you actually have quite a bit of information at hand to make your decision. I will say in my 40 years of publishing, aside from the unusual case where collaborators have come to hate one another, I've never heard of anyone being displeased by being a coauthor, but I've heard of many, many cases where people felt they were screwed out of coauthorship. All the best, g2 On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 1:05 PM, Culley, Theresa (culleyt) < [email protected]> wrote: > Good points Gary. I would also just add that I am currently in a > situation where I have access to historical data collected by a researcher > that I would like to possibly use as part of an upcoming paper. The data > are not completely necessary for our study but it does add a nice > historical context. Normally I would just contact the researcher and ask > if I could use his data, offering to include him as a coauthor on the study > (making sure he approves of the manuscript of course). If he declines, I > would not use it. However, in this case, the researcher is much older and > is suffering from extensive dementia, so he is unable to communicate. What > to do? > > The best I can figure out is to ask his family for permission since he is > unable to consider the issue. But he is not able to read and approve of > the final manuscript….ethically, is this still ok? Is it enough for his > family to act in his stead? I think it is important to give him proper > credit for any use of his historical data and placing him in the > acknowledgment section does not seem appropriate to me in this case. The > graduate student who helped him years ago is my current collaborator. From > what I can gather from her, he always intended to have these data published > at some point but never got around to doing it himself. Perhaps this is > the way it can be done and honor his original wishes? > > I have seen cases where a deceased author has been included on a paper > with a superscript indicating his/her posthumous status and noting their > contribution. In the case of authors with dementia or who are otherwise > unable to correspond about the paper, is there something similar or is this > just too tactless? > > Any thoughts welcome, > Theresa > > > > *Theresa M. Culley, Ph.D.* > Editor-in-Chief, *Applications in Plant Sciences* > Professor, Department of Biological Sciences > University of Cincinnati > 614 Rievesch Hall > Cincinnati, OH 45221-0006 > *Tel*: 513-556-9705 <(513)%20556-9705> > *Web*: www.homepages.uc.edu/~culleyt/CulleyLab.html > *Email*: [email protected] > > > > > On Feb 24, 2017, at 9:51 AM, Gary Grossman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Although there are clear guidelines for authorship in the Vancouver > Protocol and I believe ESA actually follows these guidelines, I believe > that the guidelines adopted (which were for medical journals) are > unnecessarily rigid. The four guidelines are: > > > - Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; > or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND > - Drafting the work or revising it critically for important > intellectual content; AND > - Final approval of the version to be published; AND > - 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. > > However I question whether it is really essential in every case to meet > these guidelines. Specifically when a researcher suffers an untimely death > and leaves unpublished data that others are familiar with and can publish. > You may think this is a straw woman but I am dealing with this situation > right now. Frankly I believe it would be unethical to put the deceased's > name in the acknowledgements (as the protocol states) rather than as a > coauthor. I really don't see in ecological or evolutionary or taxonomic > work where it is necessary for *every* author to satisfy these conditions > and frankly I doubt these conditions are actually met in the majority of > large multi-authored papers (say papers with 5-15 coauthors) regardless of > what box you check in the submission form. (Typically the senior author > just checks a box that says everyone meets these conditions or at least has > read the final version of the paper.) I think a system where the senior > author is responsible for meeting these conditions is reasonable for our > field or even a majority of authors must meet them. > > I know the guidelines were set up to reduce fraud (notice how it seems to > be mostly medical folks <g>) and also to reduce the frequency of "courtesy" > authorship (where someone who wasn't really involved in the research in a > meaningful way is "given" authorship. For example, in the days when > Department Heads controlled in house research funding, I have been told > there were cases where you didn't get any research funding unless you put > the Department Head's name on your papers. I have been in a similar enough > situation so that I believe this likely occurred. Finally, I doubt that it > has reduced the frequency of courtesy authorship, and perhaps even fraud, > although I don't have any data on these things. > > In ecology today we have entered a realm where the use of other > researcher's data is becoming more and more common. I published my first > paper using someone else's data in 1982 (Grossman et al. Am. Nat. > 120:423-454) and included the original author because I wanted to be able > to ask him questions regarding his methods etc. given that my usage of the > data was different from his original. In addition, and perhaps this seems > charmingly "old school" I couldn't have published a paper without his data > and therefore coauthorship was entirely appropriate. However, this > "convention" seems to be going by the wayside if the requests I receive for > my data sets are any indication. I would ask, how could an author answer > the four criteria above without a coauthor who knows how the data were > collected, sampling efficiency, analyzed, etc? Should having just > collected, and published data automatically warrant coauthorship...I would > say it depends. When I have been in this situation I have always been > involved in design and writing of the paper to earn my coauthorship but I'm > sure others handle it in manyfold ways. > > Well those are my thoughts. Let the discussion begin. > > > g2 > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Gary D. Grossman, PhD > Fellow, American Fisheries Soc. > > Professor of Animal Ecology > Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources > University of Georgia > Athens, GA, USA 30602 > > Website - Science, Art (G. Grossman Fine Art) and Music > www.garygrossman.net > Blog - https://medium.com/@garydavidgrossman > Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation > Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology > Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish > > Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html > > > > -- Gary D. Grossman, PhD Fellow, American Fisheries Soc. Professor of Animal Ecology Warnell School of Forestry & Natural Resources University of Georgia Athens, GA, USA 30602 Website - Science, Art (G. Grossman Fine Art) and Music www.garygrossman.net Blog - https://medium.com/@garydavidgrossman Board of Editors - Animal Biodiversity and Conservation Editorial Board - Freshwater Biology Editorial Board - Ecology Freshwater Fish Hutson Gallery Provincetown, MA - www.hutsongallery.net/artists.html
