{"id":2715,"date":"2019-05-24T10:10:42","date_gmt":"2019-05-24T10:10:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/who-should-be-held-accountable-for-research-misconduct-first-authors-or-last-authors\/"},"modified":"2025-02-21T07:17:53","modified_gmt":"2025-02-21T07:17:53","slug":"who-should-be-held-accountable-for-research-misconduct-first-authors-or-last-authors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/who-should-be-held-accountable-for-research-misconduct-first-authors-or-last-authors","title":{"rendered":"Who should be held accountable for research misconduct \u2013 first authors or last authors?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Research misconduct is a pressing issue facing the research community. Scientific misconduct not only tarnishes the reputation of the science community but can also have lasting effects beyond academia, as policy makers rely on scientific research to make policy decisions, while professionals as well as common people refer to scientific studies to make day-to-day life decisions and choices. While detecting instances of scientific inaccuracy or misconduct is difficult, pinpointing the culprits is even more difficult in today\u2019s times as researchers now work in collaboration and research papers are often co-written by several authors. One of the big questions bothering academics is \u2013 Who should be held accountable for misconduct in research papers written by multiple authors?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Some academics believe that the first author of a paper must be held responsible for any misconduct in the research. Their belief is supported by a recent paper titled \u2018Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams\u2019 published in Plos One<\/i><\/a>, <\/i>which concluded that the first authors of research papers are more likely to be responsible for research misconduct. The authors of this study analyzed the reports of 80 misconduct cases investigated by the US Office of Research Integrity, between 1993 and 2014. According to the analysis, chances of the first author being guilty of research misconduct were 38% more than the other co-authors of the paper. Additionally, corresponding authors have a 14% higher chance of being the offenders, the study suggested.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

However, different opinions are held by different groups in academia. The guidelines provided by some scientific societies like the International Committee of Medical Editors (ICMJE)<\/a> and the Council of Science Editors (CSE)<\/a> recommend that researchers should be held accountable only for their contribution in the research. Contrastingly, some scholarly institutions like the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)<\/a> and All European Academies (ALLEA)<\/a> suggest that all researchers should be investigated if evidence of malpractice is discovered in their research.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Departing from these two models, the authors of the study published in Plos One<\/i><\/a>, Katrin Hussinger, professor of strategy and organization at the University of Luxembourg, and Maikel Pellens, visiting professor in entrepreneurship at Ghent University, favor a third model of holding researchers accountable for misconduct, where a single author is appointed as guarantor for scientific accuracy. The study recommends \u201ca guarantor-like model where first authors are ex-ante accountable for misconduct is highly likely to not miss catching the author responsible, while not afflicting too many bystanders<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This evoked mixed reactions in the scientific community. Jeffrey Kovac, a physical chemist and research ethicist at the University of Tennessee told the Chemistry World<\/i><\/a> <\/i>that <\/i>the guarantor model \u201cseems to be the best option<\/a>.\u201d He, however, expressed a concern that an unsuspecting guarantor could easily be framed by a co-researcher for misconduct that is not easy to detect. \u201cIn cases of alleged scientific misconduct it is important to investigate the entire teams to find out who is responsible,\u201d he added. Another academic, Daniele Fanelli, a researcher at the London School of Economics, echoed Kovac\u2019s argument and added that \u201cholding someone accountable for the misconduct of another is ethically and legally untenable<\/a>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Departing from this opinion, Malcolm Macleod, a neuroscientist at the University of Edinburgh, proposed that the senior author or the corresponding author of the paper be held accountable in cases of misconduct, as they would have noticed the misdeeds of the first author and are therefore guilty of the malpractices, too. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

It remains to be seen how this study influences the opinion of researchers within the community. Do you think the first author of the study should take the responsibility for the entire team\u2019s misconduct? What, according to you, is the best way to hold accountable the offenders for research misconduct? Share your thoughts on this debate in the comments section below.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Related reading:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n