|
« AAUP Homepage
|
Chemistry Journal Reinstates Disputed Article
After postponing publication of a paper because of objections from an author's former mentor, the chemistry journal Langmuir has printed it with an unusual addendum. The mentor and three postdoctoral researchers state in the addendum that although they contributed to the work described in the paper, they are not comfortable being listed as coauthors. They claim that the work has not been replicated yet and that some of the paper's conclusions may be erroneous.
The author, Peter Schwartz, who is now a faculty member in the physics department at California Polytechnic State University, was a postdoctoral researcher in Chad Mirkin's lab at Northwestern University when, he says, he discovered a new patterning technology that makes possible the assembly of materials on the nanoscopic level, and demonstrates how nanostructures might subsequently be self-assembled using DNA linkage, a process that could have both computing and medical uses.
Schwartz's paper based on this research was accepted by Langmuir after outside reviewers praised the work, but its publication was delayed when Mirkin voiced his objections. "His contributions were minor and incomplete components of a much larger project," Mirkin opines, charging that Schwartz "has taken incomplete work from our group and presented it as his own."
Schwartz maintains that his paper is based on his own valid findings and argues that Mirkin's attempt to obstruct the paper's publication sends a chilling message to junior scientists, who must publish to advance in their careers. "Scientific investigation that produces results should be published, and as quickly as possible so that other scientists can replicate the work, critique it, and build on it," he says.
The controversy highlights the complexity of intellectual property issues in academic science and raises the question whether postdoctoral researchers need the consent of senior researchers to publish results. The usual practice in the physical sciences is for the lead researcher on a particular project, the lab chief, and everyone else who worked on the project to sign onto any publication of the project's results as coauthors. In this case, both sides agree that Schwartz offered coauthorship to Mirkin and to others in the lab, but was turned down; it wasn't his to offer, says Mirkin.
Disputes about who should get credit are not uncommon, but they usually center on who will receive the prestigious "first author" credit. A situation in which a lab chief refused permission to publish after a paper was submitted by a researcher does not seem to have arisen before. Most authorship disputes are worked out in private, says Northwestern University's vice president for research, Lydia Villa-Komaroff, who adds that "it's unfortunate that Peter Schwartz decided to play this out in public." The postponement of the paper's publication received considerable coverage in the science and academic press. In an exchange of letters published in Chemical and Engineering News, Villa-Komaroff points out that the dispute goes beyond concerns about professional recognition and the experiment's reproducibility; it also involves concerns about patent rights. In cases like this one, where the research at issue may have lucrative commercial applications, individual researchers in a lab, the lab head, and the university have financial interests at stake.
|