Can an author claim sole authorship if the hired statistician writes half of the paper?

Question

The paper in question is an analysis of government statistics to answer a question in sociology. The analysis was applied to a single government survey of a large population.

The sociologist has limited knowledge of statistics. He wrote the introduction, literature review, part of the discussion, and the conclusion. He also listed the variables to be analyzed by a hired statistician.

The statistician wrote the entire results section and a summary for the discussion in his own words, accounting for about 50% of the paper. He designed the analysis and ran all of the calculations.

Is it ethical for the sociologist to list himself as the sole author of the published study? What is customary and ethical in this case?

Answer 1

It would not be ethical to claim sole authorship in this case and the statistician should be listed as an author. It's always a good idea to get authorship sorted out as early in a project as possible to avoid problems later.

In the fields I'm familiar with (STEM) anyone who made a substantial intellectual contribution to the paper should be an author. Their contractual/payment status shouldn't be part of this decision. The Guidelines for Authorship from the University of Cambridge, and the references cited there, elaborate on this.

From a personal point of view, if questioned on the details of the statistical part, answering that you would need to check with the person who did the work would feel pretty awkward to me if they weren't an author. At least if they are an author they share responsibility for the results, otherwise it's all on you.

Answer 2

The statistician has a very good case for being included, but not absolutely clear-cut.

The British Sociological Association (BSA) lists a number of criteria for deserving authorship. The BSA criteria are quoted below (emphasis mine). They are similar to the Vancouver Protocol, which relates to medical research but is often referred to beyond medicine.

1. Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial direct academic contribution (i.e. intellectual responsibility and substantive work) to at least two of the four main components of a typical scientific project or paper:

   a) Conception or design.

   b) Data collection and processing.

   c) Analysis and interpretation of the data.

   d) Writing substantial sections of the paper (e.g. synthesising findings in the literature review or the findings/results section).

2. Everyone who is listed as an author should have critically reviewed successive drafts of the paper and should approve the final version.

3. Everyone who is listed as author should be able to defend the paper as a whole (although not necessarily all the technical details).

If a contributor fulfills each main criterion, they must be included as author.

If a contributor does not fulfill each main criterion, they must not be included as author.

If a contributor fulfills some criteria but not others, they should be acknowledged. (This is how I interpret the clause "all those who make a substantial contribution to a paper without fulfilling the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged.")

Paraphrasing from the question and comments:

• The statistician wrote half of the paper
• The statistician designed the analysis and ran all of the calculations

The statistician clearly fulfills criterion 1, as they contributed to design, data processing, analysis, and writing.

Since they contributed a crucial component of the paper, they arguably would be able to defend the remainder too, as in criterion 3.

It's not clear whether the statistician approved the final version, as in criterion 2. But it seems likely.

Obviously, the statistician should at least be acknowledged, since they fulfill some criteria. But all things considered, the statistician has a pretty good case for being included as co-author as well, in particular when comparing their contribution to that of the sociologists (which I have not done here).

Answer 3

I do not know what the standards are in sociology, but the contribution of the statistician looks quite substantial to me. Without even looking at standard guidelines as other responses do, from my gut impression that the contribution you describe is well above the threshold for co-authorship.

Leaving them out feels quite wrong, even mentioning it in an acknowledgement them feels like a downgrade. It is perfectly fine for not everyone to be expert in everything and for different people to providing complementary contributions, but leaving them out is just plain wrong.

There is a reason why interdisciplinary research usually has a hard time being justified - one often either drastically over- or underestimates the expertise contribution of the neighbouring fields, leading to a distorted view of the intellectual value of external contributions (in both directions). [yes, I know, statistics is well established in sociology, but the present question precisely reflects the classical interdisciplinary dilemma]

Answer 4

At this point I will offer what I think is an authoritative answer to the question. I consulted with a senior sociologist who conducts quantitative studies. Here's what he told me: (1) It's common for sociologists to hire statisticians because they don't have and aren't expected to have advanced skills in statistics. (2) Normally the statistician only prepares tables and charts. The statistician does not write a long, publication-ready report. (3) If the latter occurs, the statistician would be a co-author. (4) What is more expectable is that the sociologist has the skill to read and interpret the statistician's work, and then the sociologist writes the narrative results and discussion sections. In that case the sociologist takes sole authorship and might credit the statistician in an acknowledgment. (5) Claiming sole authorship in the present scenario would be plagiarism and it would invite other serious risks, like being unable to discuss the study intelligently in a job interview. (6) In order to claim sole authorship in the present case, the sociologist would need to substantially rewrite the statistician's report, not publish it verbatim.

The senior sociologist questioned why this study was undertaken in the first place, since the junior sociologist has so little knowledge of statistics. There's a case for that, but I also think a junior sociologist could begin working with statisticians to increase skills and learn the ethics of authorship. Not having statistics skills is a handicap for a sociologist, since the answers to many pressing questions in sociology are contained in government statistics.

I'm satisfied with the senior sociologist's answer. It doesn't refer to any formal authorship codes, but it's a good answer from the field. I appreciate everyone's input on this. Thank you!

Answer 5

Just to add a search term to the discussion:

Not including someone who did make a substantial intellectual contribution to the study/paper is called ghost authorship and is as such unacceptable.

Academic ghostwriting is not just a matter of the rights of the ghostwriter (who in many jurisdictions can legally agree to their name being excluded from the author list), but

• it leaves the remaining authors misrepresenting their contributions as including those of the ghost author. This is plagiarism (even though the text is novel and original).
• it can hide possible conflicts of interest.

Answer 6

The BSA criteria for authorship seems like a solid starting point. Indeed if the statistician processed the data, wrote a substantial part of the work and presumably devised the analysis method themselves,it would be a case for acknowledgement or even authorship. But it depends:please take a look at @henning 's criterion no. 2 : the statistician should have seen/ approved of the final form of the paper.It seems trivial but what if someone hires you, a specialist in your field, to do a certain analysis- and you do that , and presumably receive everything, including authorship and some form of remuneration but never get to see the final work? Maybe they used the information you provided in a context you feel it is not correct. Maybe they "load" you with some opinions and interpretations you disagree with, maybe they would misuse your work, or draw the wrong conclusions from a good analysis. And you could potentially be called out for something in "your" paper that you did not effectively sanction -because you never had the chance. So I make a case for "acknowledgement" not "authorship" if the (major) contributor did not have any..editing options, as in rejecting or requiring modifications to be made so as to reflect their own opinion and analysis.