N.P.GRIGORIEV, G.SENATSKAIA

VIEMS, Moscow, Russia

 

Geoethical problems of authorship

in scientific publications

 

     The authorship may be defined as a moral recognition by society that the scientist has a right to be considered as creator or participant of creation of published research results. To fulfill the research the author has to demonstrate creative abilities and professional skill. The authorship is documented by indicating name/names of the author(s) or co-authors in printed, electronic or written form. Authorship presents a serious ethical problem but it may also have financial and other consequences. In some aspects it is close to legal acknowledgement of a right to intellectual property. Authorship determines priority, public recognition (including - for example - citation index) and all kinds of awards, prizes etc. Not rarely the scientists salaries depend on it. Numerous ethical problems arise in connection with collective authorship. Beside researchers many other persons claim for the co-authorship.

 

     We single out several existing approaches to authorship determination:

1. Research collaboration or participation,

2. Suggesting the dominant area,

3. Creative or professional contribution (analytical work, fauna determination, results interpretation etc.),

4. Hierarchical authorship (all persons on upper levels consider themselves o be authors of research, fulfilled by their subordinates),

5. Prestige authorship (head of scientific school automatically is recognized as author of his pupils or collaborators research),

6. Corporation authorship (research made by collaborators of company or other corporation, structure etc. is recognized as anonymous product of corporation),

7. Faked authorship (authorship got as bribe, gift, purchase, plagiarism etc. by a person alien to research).

 

     Borders between these categories are difficult to be delineated. Who should be considered as author, first author, and co-author, faked author or violator of moral standards that is sometimes hard to decide without an appropriate inquiry. The criteria inside research community are unsteady and dim. Many hidden conflicts and unethical compromises occur.

 

     The problem under discussion is of practical importance. In publishing and show-business legal rights of producer on one side, interpreter and creator on the other side are clearly delineated. It determines their share in income from intellectual property and its exploitation. Certain rules are observed also in order of mentioning names and titles. One may consider types 1 - 3 as analogous to creator - interpreter part, 4 - 6 as producer part, and 7 - as criminal. In Russia a conception of state right to scientific and technological intellectual property created with the state money is in preparation. It is obvious that geoethical criteria (in the sense of L. Němcová) of authorship must be formulated previously by the geoscience community.