\n\tBy SHANNON O. WELLS<\/p>\n
\n\tWhen one researcher doesn\u2019t agree with how writing credits appear on a published paper, Pitt Research leaders prefer that the authors at least try to sort it out amongst themselves.<\/p>\n
\n\tThat\u2019s the message Bill Yates, vice chancellor for research protections, shared with the Senate Research Committee on May 15 at its last meeting of the 2025-26 academic year, in proposing an authorship resolution process.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIf somebody has a concern, they shouldn\u2019t run off to a committee first. They should talk to the lead author and say, \u2018Hey, wait a minute, this isn\u2019t fair. I should have been an author,\u2019 or \u2018I should have been the first author\u2019 and discuss it with the team first,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\n\tFor instances when this approach doesn\u2019t easily resolve the issue, the proposed authorship resolution process would involve an ombudsman or neutral facilitator, \u201csuch as a senior faculty member in your department. Maybe it\u2019s the department chair. Somebody that can help the group come up with a mutually acceptable decision about authorship,\u201d he explained.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cWhat we\u2019re suggesting now is, if all fails, that we put together an authorship dispute committee to provide more advice to the authors. And the advice is going to be neutral and hopefully will help resolve the conflict amongst the team.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe authorship dispute committee would be similar to what Duke and other universities have in a variety of disciplines, he noted. The committees also should involve trainees.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cSometimes trainees are the people that are bringing the concerns about authorship, and having a trainee perspective is very helpful,\u201d Yates said, which would include one graduate student and one postdoc. \u201cOf course, the committee will need an additional chair who is there mainly to do the work, to do the intakes, make assignments, etc.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe Pitt committee would likely require six faculty members in various disciplines, including a human subject researcher, a basic biomedical researcher, professions like law, business, education, and areas such as social sciences, humanities\/the arts, and someone from STEM fields like mathematics, engineering, computer physics, computer science, and physics or chemistry.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIf somebody has a concern, there would be a process. They would fill out (an intake) form, so that in writing they can relay their concern about authorship,\u201d Yates explained. \u201cThe first question the chair will ask, is \u2018Have you tried to resolve this informally?\u2019 And if they haven\u2019t, they\u2019re going to send them back to talk with the lead author and try to, again, get the authors to work it out amongst themselves.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe committee would be charged with gathering information about who should be the first author and what are the team\u2019s concerns and perspectives. The committee would then provide a written determination to the authors and their dean or deans, if multiple schools are involved.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThis is not binding,\u201d Yates clarified. \u201cIt\u2019s just, the committee has been asked to look at the authorship, and this is what we think. \u2026 The authors don\u2019t need to take the advice \u2026 it\u2019s neutral advice from a knowledgeable committee that hopefully will help the authors make a good determination about what the authorship should be.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe committee is engaged when somebody has a concern. \u201cIt gives advice back, and it\u2019s just advice.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tYates added a similar caveat to the proposal from Duke University\u2019s approach that could lead to a binding decision.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIf the authors all agree \u2014 everybody involved in authorship on a study and might be involved \u2014 say, \u2018Please, committee, tell us what the authorship should be,\u2019 then the advice could be binding. But it should not be binding unless everybody tells the committee, \u2018Please make a decision for us.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tYates said he thinks the approach will be beneficial to Pitt\u2019s research community. \u201cIf you do think it\u2019s a useful idea, your feedback on who should be on the committee is helpful. \u201c(We\u2019ll) also need your help socializing the committee once it\u2019s formed with deans and departments.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tA question arose about a proposal provision that says if authors do not accept committee guidance, its written determination \u201cmay be treated as presumptive evidence of the appropriate authorship designation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tYates clarified that if the authors \u201creally don\u2019t take any advice and they can\u2019t submit a paper, or if there are concerns raised by a journal, there\u2019s this document that\u2019s out there,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is an impartial committee that thinks this is what the authorship should be.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cAgain, it\u2019s non-binding. \u2026 Presumptively, the authors will accept this advice, but if they don\u2019t, they don\u2019t. No one can tell people what the authorship on the paper, on for their scholarship, should be.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tThe document would be sent to all the authors, including those who were left out, as well as the dean.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cIf the authors are not going to be able to sort this out at this point between themselves, the dean is going to have to get involved and hopefully help them resolve their controversy,\u201d Yates clarified, adding that it would remain within the school or institution. \u201cThis is not any regulatory thing. It\u2019s not punitive at all. It\u2019s advice to help people.\u201d<\/p>\n
\tWorkload concerns<\/p>\n
\n\tResponding to a question from Melanie Scott, associate professor in the Department of Surgery, about how this might affect the committee\u2019s workload, Yates said, \u201cThat\u2019s a good question. We don\u2019t know \u2026 until we roll it out.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cI know what we get in our office, and we get a couple a month, something like that. Now, once this committee rolls out and it\u2019s available, we may get more. We\u2019re going to have to look to see,\u201d he acknowledged. \u201cThat\u2019s why I don\u2019t want any rigid written guidelines or structure for the committee right now, because the committee may have to adapt its procedures based on its workload.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tYates further clarified that the guidance is based on international academic research standards.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThese are not our standards, these are \u2026 adopted pretty much consistently across fields,\u201d he said. \u201cIf the person in that core lab has played a big role in data collection and interpretation, they probably should be an author, but if it\u2019s just the manager of the core lab says, \u2018Yeah, you can use my lab,\u2019 and is given no intellectual contribution to the paper, they should be acknowledged, but probably not (as) an author.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tAddressing Scott\u2019s concern about the \u201cscope creep on this,\u201d Rob Rutenbar, senior vice chancellor of research, clarified the chain of command as authors first talking to each other followed by \u201cyour department head or heads or institute directors, the n-plus-one level of authority, talk to them about this, and (the committee process) is when all else fails.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThe University has a thoughtful, neutral level of expertise, so I\u2019m hoping that we can curate the workload a bit by saying \u2018No, you guys go talk about this among yourselves first,\u2019 and hopefully that works most of these things out,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s like (Yates) said, we get a couple of these a month and (he) always tells me about them.<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cThe problem is people say, \u2018I wish to report some research misconduct. I should be an author,\u2019 and it\u2019s like, \u2018No, it\u2019s not research misconduct. Maybe you should be an author.\u2019<\/p>\n
\n\t\u201cWe just think this is a good, honest attempt to put some expertise in front of a problem where we\u2019ve had white space.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\tShannon Wells is a University Times reporter. Reach him at shannonw@pitt.edu<\/a>.<\/p>\n \n\t\u00a0<\/p>\n \n\tHave a story idea or news to share? Share<\/a> it with the University Times.<\/p>\n