r>
ntec
Best Practices for Desighat
r "
Essential Concepts
ing Authorship:
EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy encourages the publication and presentation of
research and the communication of scientific information to the public. EPA's Principles
of Scientific Integrity require that EPA employees represent and acknowledge the
intellectual contributions of others in published work such as journal articles and
technical reports and refrain from taking credit for work with which they were not
materially involved.
Authorship practices are often guided by scientific disciplines, institutions, research
groups, and the policies of journals or publishers. This can lead to ambiguity,
uncertainty, and inconsistency in how authorship is assigned to EPA work products.
EPA Best Practices for Designating Authorship fulfills the need for a common
understanding of the best practices for recognizing the contributions of individuals
through authorship of EPA work products and this document summarizes some
essential authorship concepts.
EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy also affirms the Agency's commitment to transparency.
The designation of authorship plays a critical role in transparency by identifying who
is responsible for the information and conclusions in EPA work products and how
they were developed.
This document does not create new rules for designating authorship. The best
practices apply prospectively to any EPA work product where authorship is
designated, including but not limited to journal articles, reports, presentations,
posters, documentation of models or software, communication products, technical
support documents, and guidance documents.
Although this document identifies a variety of best practices, the most important is
to discuss responsibilities and authorship among participating individuals before a
project commences and periodically as work progresses. Most authorship disputes can
be avoided or resolved by engaging in open and frank conversations early and often.
vvEPA
http://www.epa.gov/osa/authorship-best-practices
-------
Trainees, Technicians, and Contractors
Trainees
Students, postdoctoral fellows, interns and other trainees (hereafter referred to as
"trainees") can be an important part of a project team. Because trainees are typically at an
early stage in their career and are appointed for a limited period of time, they are sometimes
viewed as subordinate by other members of the project team who have more experience
and seniority. Nevertheless, the same authorship criteria apply to all members of a project
team including trainees. Authorship on any EPA work product should always represent the
significance of the individual's contribution to the work product regardless of institutional
status.
Trainees often rely on the recommendations of more senior members of the project team for
future job opportunities and career advancement.The power disparity between trainees and
senior members of a project team can lead to trainee reluctance to dispute authorship
assignments. All authors are responsible for taking appropriate action if they believe they
have identified any type of authorship abuse associated with the work product.
Technicians
Technicians are subject to the same authorship best practices as all other members of a
project team. A technician should be listed as an author if the technician fulfilled all of the
authorship criteria. However, simply performing routine tasks does not qualify a technician
for authorship.
The possibility of authorship can be a powerful incentive that enhances employee
engagement. If a technician and their supervisor agree that the technician is a candidate for
authorship on a work product, the supervisor should encourage the technician early in the
project to engage in the full spectrum of intellectual activities that result in meeting all
authorship criteria.
Contractors
Project contributors who work under an EPA contract and are not federal employees are
subject to the same authorship best practices as other members of the project team.
Because naming contractors as authors could create the appearance of a contractor
performing an inherently governmental function, the EPA Acquisition Regulations require
the clauses specified in Appendix 2 of Best Practices for Designating Authorship to be includ-
ed in any contract that could result in the publication of work performed under the
contract. In addition, the text,
"Contractor's role did not include establishing Agency policy"
must also be included in any work product that lists authors who worked under an EPA
contract.
Other Important Authorship Topics
Please referto the full Best Practices for Designating Authorship ior important information
about plagiarism, self-plagiarism, author order and roles and responsibilities, authorship
approval and dispute resolution, shared authorship, contribution statements and authorship
agreements, conflicts of interest and bias, and copyright issues.
-------
Authorship Criteria
The term "author" applies to any individual who makes a substantial contribution, as
defined below, to an EPA work product. Authorship refers to the listing of contributors
to the work product.
To qualify as an author, an individual must make a substantial contribution to the work
product that fulfills all of the following three criteria:
1. Made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work product. An
individual may make a substantial intellectual contribution in several
different ways, including:
a. Conception and design (e.g., formulation of hypotheses, refining
research ideas, development of study objectives; or the definition of
experimental, statistical, modeling, or analytical approaches), or
b. Acquisition of data or development of models (e.g., non-routine
fieldwork, such as adapting or developing new techniques or
equipment necessary to collect essential data; non-routine lab work
such as development of new methods or significant modification to
existing methods essential to the research; literature searches;
theoretical calculations; and development and application of
modeling specific to the project), or
c. Analysis and interpretation of data.
2. Wrote or provided editorial revisions to the work product containing critical
intellectual content.
3. Approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable
for all aspects of the work product.
Any individual who has met these three criteria, independent of their rank, status, or
affiliation, should be named as an author. Any individual who has not met these three
criteria, independent of their rank, status, or affiliation, should not be named as an
author. An individual who knowingly publishes the intellectual work of another
without giving appropriate credit has committed plagiarism. Suppressing authorship
by unreasonably interfering in the ability of an individual to meet these three criteria
is a violation of EPA's Scientific Integrity Policy and should be reported to EPA's
Scientific Integrity Official.
Acknowledgements
Individuals who make a substantial contribution to a work product but do not meet the
authorship criteria specified above should be listed in an acknowledgments section
with a brief description of their role, if possible. Contributions worthy of
acknowledgment can include literature searching, contract or project management,
supervision, mentorship, statistical consultation, manuscript review, advice, provision
of materials or space, routine assistance, financial support, and grammatical or
stylistic editing. Individuals listed in the acknowledgments section should be notified
before final publication of the work product.
-------
Common Authorship Abuses
All of these types of authorship are unacceptable:
. Honorary, gift, guest, or courtesy authorship is authorship given to an individual
who does not meet the criteria for authorship. This type of authorship is provided
for a variety of reasons. Sometimes authorship is provided to a senior figure who
expects or demands it because he/she is in a position of authority (e.g. branch
chief, division director, or office director) or controls the project's funding. Author-
ship is sometimes improperly provided to senior figures to enhance the perceived
credibility of the work product or increase the likelihood of acceptance.
• Ghost authorship is the failure to give authorship to an individual who meets the
criteria for authorship. Ghost authorship is also sometimes used to purposefully
obfuscate the involvement of an individual or institution in a work product.
• Surprise authorship is when an individual finds that he/she has unknowingly been
given authorship for a work product without having contributed to the work or ac-
cepting responsibility for the publication's content.
• Duplicate production authorship is when material is publicly disseminated that is
the same or substantially similar to material previously disseminated without a
clear, visible reference to the original material. Duplicate production authorship is
a form of self-plagiarism (see Section 11 of Best Practices for Designating Author-
ship). If a work product contains the same or substantially overlapping material
that was previously disseminated, the work product must identify the duplicate
material and cite the original source. Publication of material that was previously
published in preliminary form such as an abstract, poster or platform presentation
at a scientific meeting, or a letter to the editor, is not considered duplicate produc-
tion authorship or self-plagiarism.
. Anonymous authorship. Normally it is not appropriate to use pseudonyms or to
publish scientific or technical reports anonymously. In rare cases when an indi-
vidual can make a credible claim that revealing his or her name as an author could
cause serious hardship (e.g., threat to personal safety or loss of employment),
anonymous content might be appropriate.The Scientific Integrity Official is avail-
able to help make such determinations.
• Filial or family authorship occurs when an EPA author includes a relative (e.g., a
child or spouse) as an author without first consulting with an ethics official. Be-
cause working as part of one's official duties with a family member raises con-
cerns about loss of impartiality and/or conflicts of interest, employees should
consult with their own ethics officials or the Office of General Counsel/Ethics in
advance.
-------
Case Studies
Yours, Mine, or Ours
You are assigned the task of completing a work product that was started by another
EPA employee in a different office a few years ago.The other employee had designed
an approach, researched and compiled information, and developed a rough draft, but
was reassigned to more urgent projects and never completed the work product. You
are told to revise the draft. However, you soon realize the draft needs more, and you
essentially re-write the entire document.You remove the other employee's name from
the author list because you completely reorganized the document, the other employee
apparently doesn't care about authorship because he never finished the project, and
after all, we are "one EPA." Is this consistent with best practices?
No. The previous employee made a substantial intellectual contribution (criterion
#1), wrote critical intellectual content (criterion #2), and may be willing to help you
finalize the work product if given an opportunity (criterion #3). Substantially revising
someone else's work does not discount the significance of the original contribution.
You should at least contact the previous employee to reach consensus on the issue of
authorship for the final work product.
Taking Stock
You inherit stock worth $26,000 in a company that manufactures a particular chemical.
There are lots of other companies that manufacture this same chemical. You're not
sure what to do with the stock, so you just ignore it while working hard on a research
paper about the toxicological effects of that same chemical in drinking water. Is this a
problem?
Yes. Even if there are other companies that manufacture this same chemical, your
ownership interest is greater than the regulatory de minimis level. You cannot
own more than $25,000 in any particular entity and still work on matters of general
applicability, which is what this example describes.
Can We Renegotiate?
At the start of a project, all of the team members agree on authorship order, with
the project leader as primary author. Just as the project begins, the project leader
is promoted and can no longer lead the day-to-day operation of the project, so she
assigns one of the team members as the new project leader. Expecting to assume the
role of primary author, the new project leader begins discussing a new authorship
order. However, the branch chief says the existing authorship order will remain. Is this
consistent with best practices?
It depends. Authorship order does not need to change simply because the status of
an author has changed. However, a change in authorship order may be appropriate if
an author's responsibilities change. With a promotion to a more "senior" position and
reduced day-to-day project responsibilities, the new branch chief may want to suggest
taking the role of "senior" author and be listed last, with the new project leader taking
the role (and responsibilities) of primary author and listed first.
-------
Scientific Integrity at U.S. EPA
Safeguarding science to protect human health and the environment
How to Report a
Scientific Integrity Allegation
Formal scientific integrity allegations may be reported to the Scientific Integrity Official, any
Deputy Scientific Integrity Official or to the Office of Inspector General. Allegations may come
from outside or inside the Agency.
• Allegations that concern waste, fraud, abuse or other criminal violations should be reported
to the Office of Inspector General.
• Allegations that concern reprisal should be reported to the Office of Inspector General or
the Office of Special Counsel.
• Allegations that concern a financial conflict of interest or other ethics issues involving
federal employees should be referred to the appropriate Deputy Ethics Official or Office of
General Counsel/Ethics, or the Human Subjects Research Review Official, as appropriate.
Allegations can also be reported to the Scientific Integrity Official without revealing the
identity of the person making the allegation. While there is no formal process for resolving
these "informal" allegations, the Scientific Integrity Official is still interested in obtaining
information about these allegations and can take some steps to help resolve them. When
a formal allegation is resolved, the Scientific Integrity Official is responsible for preparing a
summary and recommendations for corrective actions to safeguard the relevant science and will
provide follow-up to ensure that the scientific recommendations are carried out appropriately.
In addition, the resolved allegations are summarized in EPA's Scientific Integrity Annual Report
and on the internet in a way that protects the identities of the parties involved.
Scientific Integrity Committee
The Scientific Integrity Committee provides oversight for the implementation of the Scientific
Integrity Policy. Led by the Scientific Integrity Official, it is comprised of the Deputy Scientific
Integrity Officials, who are senior agency officials from each Region and Office. A list of
committee members and their contact information can be found on our website.
Report fraud, waste, or abuse to the Contact Us
Office Of I nspector General : Scientific Integrity Official
Francesca T. Grifo, PhD
E-mail: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov Write: Grifo.francesca@epa.gov
Phone: 1-888-546-8740 EPA Inspector General Hotline
Fax: 202-566-2599 1 200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Scientific Integrity Program Lead
Online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/ Mailcode 2431T Martha Otto
hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 Otto.martha@epa.gov
http://www.epa.gov/scientificintegrity EPA Publication Number: 601 F04001
------- |