Is it legal for a professor to add your name to a paper without consent?

[Cyrus]

I'm not going to sue him, and I'm not going to retract the entire article because my friend worked very hard on it and we spent A LOT of time getting data.

Im screaming because I do not tolerate doing things behind my back. When my (former) advisor slapped my name on the paper w/o telling me that was an insult. I don't care how good his intentions were. I don't care if it wins paper of the year. DONT USE MY NAME LIKE THAT. This is a matter of principle.

 

[turbo]

Just act surprised at the Nobels, and say (with feigned sincerity) "You love me!", "You LOVE me!"

Geeze!

 

[L62]

I must have missed something then because in your first post you were asking about suing the professor...

Let's say a professor ... Is there grounds here to sue said professor for forgery or misuse of your name without concent?

and I wasn't talking about retracting the entire article, just your name from the author list.

so I thought you were looking to do something concrete to remedy the situation, whatever that is. But if you have no intention of retracting your name, then what outcome are you seeking?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Let's say a professor you're working under puts your name as an author on a paper without your knowledge or concent. You're then told its past the deadline to remove your name from the paper and the paper gets submitted with your name on it anyways. (Not having contributed anything to it or have been aware). Is there grounds here to sue said professor for forgery or misuse of your name without concent?

If what you say is accurate, then the professor commited a major ethical violation, period. I agree with the recommendation to directly contact the Journal Editor (email is fine), with a detailed explanation (not an emotional one) of the facts and request that your name be removed. Then put the matter out of mind and move on.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I am not so sure this is necessarily a major ethical violation, at least not without knowing more details. It's clear that Cyrus contributed and should be either an author or given an acknowledgment. If the professor tried to reach Cyrus and failed, and other students with similar contributions ended up on the authorship side of the line, it's not clear what else the professor could have done.

I'm not arguing that this is the case here - just that it's not necessarily so cut and dried.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Putting someone's name on a paper without both informing that person and asking permission is one of the most clear-cut types of ethical violations.

 

[ank_gl]

My question still stands though: What right does an advisor have to sign your name to obligations you were not made aware of.

your question does not have an answer in a nor or a yes. It entirely depends upon the situation. You need to know why he did what he did, it seems more likely that he was aware of your contribution in data collection & didn't want to piss you by not recognizing your efforts. Maybe he overestimated your efforts, maybe he recognized your efforts, can be anything, depends entirely on his judgment.

He is only being good to you. Dont be soo resolute in principles. He might be wrong on principles, but he may be right morally.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Andy, I am going to disagree - I don't think it's always clear cut.

Three examples that I have witnessed:

Case 1: A scientist contributes to the design of an experiment, the data collection, and a really clever way of filtering the data. He passes away before the technique is really applied to that data, but had he lived and done nothing else, would clearly be an author. Should he be an author?

Case 2: A scientist is on a large, mega-collaboration. She has met all of the authorship criteria. Papers are announced on a website open only to the collaboration, and the collaboration policy is that an author is automatically on a paper unless she objects. She doesn't check the website and a paper she disagrees with is published. Has the collaboration or the spokesperson lapsed ethically?

Case 3: (One similar to this one) A number of undergrduates assist on a project, all doing similar work. One graduates before the paper is written. Everyone (including them) agrees that the remaining undergraduates should be authors, but this person cannot be reached. (As it happens, they joined the military after graduation) Should that person's name in included or excluded?

I don't think it's always as clear as we would like.

 

[vanesch]

This is a funny discussion! Most people try to get onto papers. Clearly Cyrus contributed to the paper by doing some data collection. If the professor was in a hurry submitting the paper, and given the fact that apparently Cyrus and that professor don't have a good relationship, then if the professor had to choose between putting Cyrus on the paper or leaving him off, without the possibility of asking him, then the obvious choice would be to put him on the paper. If Cyrus would be happy, then in a way, Cyrus would "owe something" to him. If Cyrus would be angry (as he seems to be), this would then picture the professor as a correct person who cares about people who take data for him, even (or especially) when their human relationships are not very good, and picture Cyrus as a difficult character do deal with. On the other hand, if he would not put his name on it, and Cyrus would be angry, then that would put the professor in a more difficult position: he might be accused of having abused of Cyrus' work and because of his bad personal relationship, been unethical by not having Cyrus' name on the paper.

In doubt, the professor had every reason to put Cyrus on the paper, it was a win-win situation for him, and it would have been a more difficult situation not to put Cyrus' name there.

I would say that Cyrus would make some kind of fool of him by wanting his name to be retracted from the paper *unless he has serious scientific reasons* to do so. In THAT case his request could be very interesting (like, I don't want to be associated with this fraud or something). But if this is a sound paper, and Cyrus did make some data collection for it, he would just show up as a strange and annoying person wanting to make a spectacle of himself. And that might have been the real reason why that professor put his name there in the first place: to have Cyrus react exactly like this, and for him to make a fool of himself.

Get me right: Cyrus is not making a fool of himself, but he will appear to many to do so.

 

[Andy Resnick]

Andy, I am going to disagree - I don't think it's always clear cut.

Three examples that I have witnessed:

<snip>
I don't think it's always as clear as we would like.

The phrase that comes to mind here is "bad cases make bad law". Example (1) can be dealt with easily- not an author, goes in acknowledgment**. Example (2)- the scientist is at fault, since the policy was (presumably) known beforehand and agreed to as a condition of employment. Example (3): (ex) student goes in acknowledgments.

Don't take my word for it:

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/02_2.cfm
http://www.apa.org/science/rcr/publication.html
http://www.nih.gov/catalyst/back/95.07/h.Ethics.html

Key to every single statement is a phrase similar to "as well as a willingness to assume responsibility for the study", and that is precisely what Cyrus does not have.

**Edit- another option is to dedicate the paper to the dead guy.

 

[Andy Resnick]

This is a funny discussion! Most people try to get onto papers. Clearly Cyrus contributed to the paper by doing some data collection. If the professor was in a hurry submitting the paper, and given the fact that apparently Cyrus and that professor don't have a good relationship, then if the professor had to choose between putting Cyrus on the paper or leaving him off, without the possibility of asking him, then the obvious choice would be to put him on the paper. <snip>

Absolutely not. The obvious choice would have been to put Cyrus' name in the acknowledgments section.

I have a forceful opinion on this subject because professional ethics is rarely formally taught, and it should be a part of graduate education although it is for many other professions- medicine, law, business (insert joke here), etc. The public respects scientific research *because* of the ethical guidelines- ethics is not there to make us feel good about ourselves, it is to ensure that I do not have to go back to first principles every single time I do an experiment.

 

[vanesch]

Key to every single statement is a phrase similar to "as well as a willingness to assume responsibility for the study", and that is precisely what Cyrus does not have.

This is exactly what makes it so difficult to have him his name withdrawn without somehow exposing him to a weird view. Is he an irresponsible person ? Did he make such a mess of it, that he is ashamed of what he did ? Does he just want to be a prima donna ? Does he think he has such a reputation that the professor is getting an extra honor by having Cyrus name on it (as it would be like having Witten's name on it or something) ? It is difficult to do so without getting a funny reputation. So how do you go about having your name removed of a correctly done study to which you contributed and without having fundamental scientific reasons ?

 

[vanesch]

I have a forceful opinion on this subject because professional ethics is rarely formally taught, and it should be a part of graduate education although it is for many other professions- medicine, law, business (insert joke here), etc. The public respects scientific research *because* of the ethical guidelines- ethics is not there to make us feel good about ourselves, it is to ensure that I do not have to go back to first principles every single time I do an experiment.

The point is that scientific activity is a human activity like any other and that publications, and names on them, and citations are a major tool for career-making in the academic world. They are what money is in the business world. Individual actors in the field are expected to try to increase their visibility in the field by trying to be on as many publications as they can, and by having as many citations as they can. That's the expected social behavior within the scientific community. It gives a strange picture to be angry at someone who wanted to do you a favor as a function of the expected general aspirations in the group (in other words, by putting your name on a paper, which is normally what you are craving for). The strangeness comes about from the not fitting into the expected social behavior in that group.

It is as if you became angry at an airline company because it sent you some free tickets to thank you for being a faithful customer, with the excuse that you want to deserve your tickets by paying for them, and that you don't want any favors you didn't ask for.

 

[Andy Resnick]

To some degree it's not relevant *why* he would want his name removed, but I totally understand what you are saying. Cyrus needs to decide what his priorities are- the risk of looking unprofessional, or the benefit of having a clear conscience.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>
Individual actors in the field are expected to try to increase their visibility in the field by trying to be on as many publications as they can, and by having as many citations as they can. That's the expected social behavior within the scientific community.

<snip> someone who wanted to do you a favor

<snip>

I highlighted and extracted those bits precisely because they demonstrate, better than I could, on *why* there are professional guidelines for authorship. In fact, according to Cyrus, he was *not* done a favor. And, whether or not (you think) certain behaviors are "expected" or not is no justification for anything- ethical and professional guidelines exist for a reason! Science is not subject to mob rule or majority opinion.

 

[L62]

there are reasons to not want your name to be on the author list even if you did contribute to the paper, and so you have the right to decide if you do want to be listed as an author or not.

For example, it does happen that sometimes collaborators on a project disagree with the conclusions of the work. The lead author has the final say in how the paper should be written, but if a collaborator seriously feels that the paper is not scientifically sound, they may not want their name to be associated with such - in their opinion - flawed work. Your professional reputation can be affected. Not all published papers are "good" and if my collaborators used some of my work but I wasn't at all impressed with what they were doing with my contribution, I would not want my name associated with a paper that I feel is not going to put me in a good light.

So, Cyrus' motives for wanting his name removed from the paper is beside the point. He could have many valid reasons for not wanting to be associated with the work. the question is whether there was an ethical violation committed, and what he can do about it, and is it going to help any to do something about it.

 

[stewartcs]

Let's say a professor you're working under puts your name as an author on a paper without your knowledge or concent. You're then told its past the deadline to remove your name from the paper and the paper gets submitted with your name on it anyways. (Not having contributed anything to it or have been aware). Is there grounds here to sue said professor for forgery or misuse of your name without concent?

The only way to really know is to consult an attorney.

However, it doesn't sound like forgery since he didn't use your name with intent to commit fraud or deceit.

FORGERY - The act of criminally making or altering a written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit; for example, signing another person's name to a check. To write payee's endorsement or signature on a check without the payee's permission or authority. The 'payee' of a check is the true owner or person to whom the check was payable.

However, if you suffered actual damages by his actions, then you may have case. However, if you suffered no actual damages then you will not get anything.

Again, it's best to consult an attorney if you are serious about pursuing this.

CS

 

[Sheneron]

Haha its like trying to sue someone for giving you 500 dollars. There are only negative damages.

 

[DaveC426913]

Haha its like trying to sue someone for giving you 500 dollars. There are only negative damages.

No.

It's like someone giving you credit for rescuing a little girl from a burning car when in fact it was the guy who left before the camera crew arrived.

An honest person does not take credit where no credit is due.

And realizing that someone has given you this unwarranted credit deliberately and knowingly is something that cannot be countenanced by an honest person.

 

[Mapes]

No, it's like someone pointing at you and saying, "That's my baby's father." I mean, the baby's beautiful and all, but...

 

[DaveC426913]

No, it's like someone pointing at you and saying, "That's my baby's father." I mean, the baby's beautiful and all, but...

Brilliant!

 

[j93]

No.

It's like someone giving you credit for rescuing a little girl from a burning car when in fact it was the guy who left before the camera crew arrived.

An honest person does not take credit where no credit is due.

And realizing that someone has given you this unwarranted credit deliberately and knowingly is something that cannot be countenanced by an honest person.

He did say he contributed by collecting data.

 

[Cyrus]

Look, I've worked in a lab before that had all sorts of big expensive experiments with technicians needed to set up and run them. There name does not go on the paper. The PI name goes there, along with the team that works under him/her.

The PI in this case would be the advisor and the people working under him (My friend). Althoguh I also work for the PI, this is not my research. I'm simply the monkey that collected data. (And quite a lot).

I think anyone that wants their name on a paper for collecting data is academically suspect.

 

[Tickitata]

I read every post by Cyrus with the intensity of Daniel Day-Lewis in Arthur Miller's The Crucible. "Because it is my name!"


As for my two cents, I think the best course of action would be to contact the journal and see if they will remove your name from the paper. If for whatever reason they won't... just forget about it. Since you're not interested in academia, I can't see any actual damages coming from this (besides the ethical principles of the matter). Yes, it was wrong for your professor. But...so what? It seems now like you were only joking about a lawsuit, but if not, in my opinion that'd create a much larger headache than it's worth.

 

[f95toli]

I think anyone that wants their name on a paper for collecting data is academically suspect.

But that would probably eliminate 80% of all the authors on most experimental papers. The new data is after all the most important part of any paper in experimental physics. True, there should be a where the data is interpreted and perhaps modeled as well but that is usually the least interesting section.
Just to give you another example: what about all the people who spend most of their careers in cleanrooms growing samples, doing lithography, microscopy etc? Some don't do anything else meaning they are not necessarily involved in any other part of the experiment and sometimes they don't even understand the physics behind the experiment (nor do they care, I know people who do e.g. microscopy for so many projects that there is no way they can keep track of the finer details of each project so often they settle for making sure they understand the part that is relevant to their part of the work).
But on the other hand it is obviously an important part of the work (if it isn't done right nothing else will work or the data will be flawed) so obviously they deserve to have their names on papers that use results obtained from the samples they worked on.

If you really spent a lot of time collecting data and that data was then used in the paper it would be unethical of the professor NOT to include you name; of course he should have still asked you but if you had said no I can't see how he could have gone ahead and submitted the paper without your approval. Everyone who worked on a project and somehow affected the outcome of the experiment should be credited or if it is a very minor part be included in the acknowledgments.

 

[vanesch]

I think anyone that wants their name on a paper for collecting data is academically suspect.

Then the whole field of experimental high energy physics is suspect. There, *every* scientist that did just *anything* on the experiment gets on the authorlist of *all* the papers. That's why you get 500-1000 authors on every paper in these fields. Even if you only programmed the overheating protection of the data-acquisition electronics.

 

[vanesch]

No.

It's like someone giving you credit for rescuing a little girl from a burning car when in fact it was the guy who left before the camera crew arrived.

Na, it it more like, say, 3 people being on the camera, you included, being called the heroic rescue team, where actually only two of them really went into the fire, and you only held the water hose.

Would you still want to sue the camera team from including you in the picture ? Wouldn't such a behaviour come over as strange if you did ?

It is not that somebody else was left off the paper and you were given his place.

 

[Vanadium 50]

There, *every* scientist that did just *anything* on the experiment gets on the authorlist of *all* the papers.

I don't think it's quite that bad (and it's the "just anything" part that I am objecting to). Most experiments have well defined and documented conditions for authorship, and if/how this is renewed. There's usually some minimum amount of "service work" that needs to be performed and periodically this is reset and people need to re-qualify (or stop being authors).

It may not be right, but at least it's clear.

It's also not just HEP. It's in astronomy too. Most ACT telescopes have a similar policy, as does SDSS.

 

[vanesch]

I don't think it's quite that bad (and it's the "just anything" part that I am objecting to). Most experiments have well defined and documented conditions for authorship, and if/how this is renewed. There's usually some minimum amount of "service work" that needs to be performed and periodically this is reset and people need to re-qualify (or stop being authors).

Well, back when I was in HEP, this went as follows: every team being a member of the collaboration, had to declare a list of scientists and their date of entry in the team. The burden of the experiment chores was distributed according to the number of names (like the number of night shifts and so on). The entry date + 6 months meant the entry on the author list (whatever you did - but your actual task was to be decided inside your team). When the team leader declared that you parted, you still had your name on the author list until about 6 months after you left. There was strictly no relationship between your actual activities, and the contents of the papers being written. Teams had scientific and technical tasks, and they arranged between their members on how they distributed the tasks (knowing that their total burden was proportional to the number of declared members). So what I wrote was not totally imaginary: if one of the team tasks was to program the slow control, then a dedicated person could have done that (and only that), and be co-author of a sophisticated paper on I don't know what exotic phenomenon he might even never have heard about.
In the beginning of my PhD in HEP, I actually searched for more than a year how to remove static and interference from detector electronics, but I nevertheless got on some papers I didn't even understand in the beginning. Afterwards, things changed. But if I had left at that point, I would have just glued copper tape on electronics boards and soldered capacitors for having my name on some HEP papers.

 

[Mapes]

In the fields I've worked in (mechanical engineering and materials science) I often see these criteria:

1) If you wrote any part of the paper, you're an author.
2) If you contributed ideas to the paper, you're an author.

"Ideas" is defined broadly. It clearly includes study design, new models and equations, and interpretations and conclusions. If you fabricated something new or collected data on a new tool, you hopefully developed an efficient protocol that can be reported, and this constitutes new ideas. If you analyzed the data in a new way, this constitutes new ideas.

If you followed a standard protocol or fabricated something under constant direction--that is, if no new ideas were necessary or generated--than it is appropriate for you to be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section.

This part should be easy. After this comes the author order!