ANY readers will have seen newspaper reports of a recent dispute between two medical academics at the Royal College of Surgeons which involved, in part at least, a disagreement over entitlement to authorship on a scientific paper.
No doubt many people outside of the world of academic research would be surprised this matter could arouse such passion. But such things are of considerable practical importance to scientists. I will not comment on the specific case in the College of Surgeons, but it does raise an interesting general topic - the role of the scientific publication.
The fundamental reason for carrying out scientific research is to discover new knowledge about the material universe. There would be no point in doing research if you did not tell the scientific community about your results. This is generally done by publishing the work in an internationally recognised science journal. Sufficient methodological detail must be included in the paper to allow other interested scientists to repeat the experiments, thereby verifying the results, or perhaps exposing flaws in the work.
Before a paper is accepted for publication in a journal, it must first successfully pass through a process of peer review. The editor will send a submitted paper to a number of referees (usually three), scientists recognised as experts in the particular field of study. The identity of the referees is not revealed to the author or authors of the paper, but the identity of the author is known to the referees. The referees assess whether or not the paper is worthy of publication and the journal editor usually accepts this verdict.
The peer review system generally works well in ensuring published work is of high quality. However, the system has its weak points. It depends on the honesty and integrity of the referees. Reward and recognition in science is determined by the quality and number of one's publications. Within each area of research, different groups compete for access to scarce support funding. In many cases the referee appointed to assess a paper will be in competition with the author for funding and prestige. This competition seems to get keener year by year. The temptation obviously often arises for a referee to gain an advantage over the competition by being unjustly harsh in reviewing a paper. More and more charges of this nature are being made.
A paper in an international refereed journal is the most authoritative form of scientific publication. Another common, but less authoritative, form of publication occurs when a paper that has been read at a scientific conference is published in full in the conference proceedings. This type of paper is less authoritative because it is usually refereed for style only, not for content. The least authoritative type of scientific publications are abstracts (summaries of a few hundred words) of papers presented at a conference.
Most scientific papers will have more than one author. The usual convention is that the person who has carried out most of the work is the first author. The remaining authors are then listed in order of their contribution to the work. Arguments often arise in laboratories when people feel they are not listed high enough on the pecking order. I remember feeling annoyed many years ago when my name, which had appeared second on a draft of the paper, was demoted to third position on the final version of the paper.
Rewards in science come in the form of personal satisfaction with work well done, career advancement, and international recognition. The first two are self explanatory. International recognition brings kudos in the form of invitations to membership of prestigious institutions and fellowships, and invitations to deliver keynote lectures at important conferences, often held in exotic locations. All of the rewards in science depend on one's published work, which is why scientific papers are of such intense interest to scientists.
Career prospects for academic scientists in the university system, where I work, are largely determined by productivity in published work. Excellence in teaching ability is also taken into account, but not to the same extent. This is because there is no generally agreed system for objectively quantifying the quality of teaching. It is much easier to assess productivity and quality of published work. For example a frequently used aid in assessing the value of a scientific paper is to note how often the paper has bee cited in subsequent papers by other workers in the field.
Junior academic scientists in the university system have no prospects of promotion in the absence of a proven record of publications - "publish or perish". In some systems, for example in the US, pressure on junior academics to publish large numbers of papers fasts is quite intense.
US universities operate a tenure system of employment of academic staff. Tenure means what we understand as permanent employment. Junior academics in the US are taken on in non tenured (i.e. temporary) positions. They are given a certain number of years in which to achieve tenure. At the end of this period they are either appointed to tenured positions or let go. The decision is made on the basis of publication record and success in winning grant money to support research.
I understand it is not uncommon for US colleges to require a yearly average of six publications from junior staff trying to achieve tenure. This is a ferocious amount of work and, in my opinion, an unreasonable requirement. Such pressures are very counter productive, forcing people to publish second class work. It also leads to an increase in the incidence of scientific fraud.
Although the atmosphere in academic science is somewhat more relaxed in the Irish system, pressures to publish more are increasing year by year. This is particularly true in the temporary research contract positions. In these cases, grant money is available to support a research project for a period of two to three years, after which the contract may or may not be renewed. Within the last decade, the number of scientists working on such contracts in Ireland has risen dramatically and this sector now represents a significant source of employment for young scientists.
Many people have the impression that academic life is very tranquil and stress free, consisting entirely of modest amounts of teaching interspersed with very generous holidays. The truth is very different. Teaching loads are high, particularly with the explosion in student numbers over the past 10 years. Hours of work are long research is an open ended activity and there is never enough time. There are also plenty of opportunities for conflict and stress.
Samuel Johnson said: "No man but a blockhead ever wrote, except for money." Although scientific papers are not written on a fee per article basis, the rewards expected by the author or authors are no less real than monetary rewards.