1

This question already has an answer here:

I have a question, regarding authorship in a publication.

A colleague of mine who is a biologist (from a different group) received the second revision of her/his paper and in the revision it's been asked to do Anova in order to illustrate the significant change between 4 groups.

I'm saying a colleague not a friend! and also they may come more and more in the future.

I don't want to sound like a cheeky person, but have no idea whether if I do it I should be included in the paper or I should just do it as if I'm doing it for a so called friend! Should I be at least included in the acknowledgement, or?

I have no access to my boss to consult this with him. I would appreciate your help to make this point clear to me.

Thanks!

marked as duplicate by Davidmh, Enthusiastic Engineer, ff524 Feb 16 '16 at 9:24

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

  • No, the other one is about statistical consultant. I have to do analysis although small one. but they have no clue about Anova, just the reviewer asked for it. – sbmm Feb 16 '16 at 9:09
  • but thanks anyway, it was a helpful comment! – sbmm Feb 16 '16 at 9:10
  • 5
    You are acting as a statistical consultant for your friend. Your motivations (being paid for it, or doing out of kindness towards your friend) are, in my opinion, irrelevant when deciding authorship. – Davidmh Feb 16 '16 at 9:12
  • Ok, you are right, then I do it for my friend. – sbmm Feb 16 '16 at 9:21
  • What is relevant is the importance of the creative work that went into the paper. Just doing an ANOVA analysis of existing data isn't, helping to design the experiments and analysing the results might be. In any case, we here aren't privy to the detailed knowledge of your contribution to say one way or the other, that is up to the main author(s) to decide. – vonbrand Feb 16 '16 at 18:30