This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: M2212v1 14/1/16    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Welker, J. A. Articles by McCue, J. D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Welker, J. A. Articles by McCue, J. D.

Authorship versus "Credit" for Participation in Research: A Case Study of Potential Ethical Dilemmas Created by Technical Tools Used by Researchers and Claims for Authorship by Their Creators

^a University of Maryland School of Medicine, Franklin Square Clinical Research Center, Baltimore, MD
^b University of Maryland School of Medicine, Franklin Square Hospital Center, Baltimore MD.

^_* Correspondence and reprints: James A. Welker, DO, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Director, Franklin Square Clinical Research Center Franklin Square Hospital Center, Baltimore, MD 21237. (Email: Jim.Welker{at}medstar.net).

Received for publication: 07/14/06; accepted for publication: 10/13/06.

The distinction between authorship and other forms of credit for contribution to a publication has been a persisting controversy that has resulted in numerous guidelines outlining the expected contributions of those claiming authorship. While there have been flagrant, well-publicized deviations from widely accepted standards, they are largely outnumbered by cases that are not publicity-worthy, and therefore remain known to only those directly involved with the inappropriate conduct. We discuss the definition and ethical requirements of authorship, offer a case example of the authorship debate created by a technical tool at our institution, and review parallels that support and dispute the authorship claims of our software developers. Ultimately, we conclude that development of a technical tool that enables data collection does not adequately substitute for contributions to study design and manuscript preparation for authorship purposes. Unless the designers of such a technical tool prospectively participate as a part of the project, they would not have an adequate understanding of the publication’s genesis to defend it publicly and cannot be listed as authors. Therefore, it is incumbent upon project members to invite tool developers to participate at the beginning of such projects, and for tool developers to contribute to study design and manuscript preparation when they desire authorship listings.