10

This question is somewhat inspired by the question in When is a supervisor unable to request paper retraction if a paper gets published without her consent?, although I've no reason to suppose that the following situation describes the one prompting that question.

Suppose Alice and Bob do some research together, with Alice providing ~75% of the intellectual contribution (perhaps Alice is Bob's PhD student). Alice writes a draft of the paper, and lists both of them as authors.

Bob does not agree with part of what Alice has written, and says he does not agree to the paper being published in this form. Alice, however, is not willing to remove the offending section. (For the sake of argument, let's assume that neither Alice nor Bob can be said to be objectively 'in the right'.)

Is there any route out of this impasse? Can Alice treat Bob as refusing authorship of the paper, and publish the manuscript without his name?

  • 1
    My thoughts are not well-formed enough to be an answer, but by some (all?) definitions an author has final draft approval and a paper can only be published by consensus of authors. This would be an absurdity if Alice can just remove anyone who doesn't agree with her draft from the list of authors. Both "final draft approval" and "consensus" surely must mean "right to veto publication", which Bob has chosen to exercise. Sucks for Alice ofc, especially if Bob chose to feign objections for personal reasons unconnected to the content of the paper. – Steve Jessop Jun 5 '14 at 19:46
  • @SteveJessop True. But are there exceptions? Suppose Bob decides to attempt to abuse his power, and demands a bribe before agreeing. He can clearly be disciplined by his employers. Can they also dispense with the need for his consent to publication? Or does he get to destroy Alice's career as revenge for "outing" him? – avid Jun 5 '14 at 19:54
  • 1
    Right, I'm sure one can make a case for "if you abuse it you lose it", but a simple definition of "author" won't include special cases. One might perhaps argue that by offering to publish in exchange for a bribe he has in fact approved the final draft, since his only stated caveat can be set aside as illegitimate? I wonder if, for another example, an "unreasonable" but not outright abusive refusal to publish can lead to an institution or funding organization invoking some right to "publish" the results in the non-academic sense regardless of who gets or deserves the academic credit. – Steve Jessop Jun 5 '14 at 22:47
15

There are several options for Alice:

  • Ask Bob if he is willing to give up his authorship. Then, if he says it is OK, publish without his name (but make clear in which part he was involved).

  • Remove Bob's contribution from the paper and then publish. (Which might not be possible.)

  • Find some common ground (maybe with the help of someone else) with Bob and then publish. (The best way, but may not be possible.)

  • Do not publish the paper at all.

Can Alice treat Bob as refusing authorship of the paper, and publish the manuscript without his name?

No.

  • 9
    Are you sure your answer to the final question isn't influenced by your being Bob? ;-) – Ellen Spertus Jun 5 '14 at 23:02
  • 5
    @espertus every paper should be only published with my name! Or at least with paragraph praising me. – The Almighty Bob Jun 6 '14 at 2:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.