Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Editorial
Editorial: Coauthors gone bad; how to avoid publishing conflict
and a proposed agreement for co-author teams
0. Introduction
Conservation biology and related areas of science are increas-
ingly collaborative endeavors (Wuchty et al., 2005). For most of
us, working in teams can improve the quality of our research by
bringing together people with complementary areas of expertise,
generating and refining ideas, and writing and revising
manuscripts. Although working with coauthors is usually reward-
ing, it can also lead to difficulties—some coauthors may not
contribute as much as they initially promise, or in particularly
problematic cases, they may deliberately obstruct the research or
publication process.
We have encountered examples of conflicts among coauthors at
Biological Conservation and have been told about many others. We
share some general examples below and then consider how to
avoid such conflicts (Bennett and Gadlin, 2012). And finally, based
on our experience and readings, we offer a general Coauthors’
Agreement for use by conservation biologists and other scientists.
1. Examples of conflicts among coauthors
Example 1. Representatives of industry or government are
invited to be coauthors on a paper about a conservation issue so
that all stakeholders involved are included. However as the paper
proceeds to the publication stage, the industry or government sci-
entists refuse to allow the paper to go forward because the results
or conclusions are inconsistent with their organization’s policies or
will cause political or commercial problems. Instead these repre-
sentatives (or their supervisors) will only allow the paper to go
forward if the text is modified to restate, weaken, or omit key
results, conclusions, or recommendations. Rather than building
consensus, the paper may be blocked from publication at the
insistence of a coauthor.
Example 2. A coauthor blocks the publication of a paper because
he/she does not agree with their coauthors’ revisions. Such revi-
sions might include those made prior to submission or those made
in response to reviewers’ comments. Or a coauthor feels that they
have not had adequate opportunity to provide input into the revi-
sion process. This might also happen if a co-author insists on hav-
ing input on a paper, but is then too busy to do the work. An
extreme example is a coauthor who disagrees with their coauthors’
views and refuses to allow a paper to be submitted until all of his/
her requests are fully met, even though the other coauthors are
opposed to these changes. As a result the original paper may never
be submitted, or if it was submitted, it may never be fully revised
and re-submitted.
Example 3. Communication among coauthors breaks down and
stops because of personality conflicts, professional rivalries, or
jealousies. In this case, a paper may not move forward in the
publication process.
Example 4. A paper may be submitted for publication without
input from one or more coauthors. This situation of submitting
papers without the knowledge and permission of coauthors
appears to be happening more frequently now. It is a worrying
trend, and it contrary to professional standards and against journal
policy.
Example 5. Some of the most problematic cases occur when
professors and graduate students are coauthors on a paper.
Because professors have much greater power and experience in
these situations, unethical and selfish professors can manipulate
authorships to their advantage, dictating who will be coauthor
without consulting everyone involved (Kwok, 2005). In extreme
cases, professors can take primary or even exclusive credit for work
done primarily by their students, or even block their students from
submitting papers.
2. Recommendations for avoiding conflict
These are obviously unusual and worrying situations, but they
do happen. How can you avoid such situations? And what can
you do to deal with them once they develop?
Research tells us that trust is among the most important factors
in successful collaborations—it is difficult for a team to succeed
without it (Bennett and Gadlin, 2012). If co-authors do not trust
each other, they can begin to question each other’s motivations
and actions in every situation. Other essential elements of good
collaboration include developing a shared vision and clear expecta-
tions, sharing recognition and credit, handling conflict, building a
good team, and having fun. Open, honest, and respectful communi-
cation is critical for achieving all of these aims, and most successful
collaborations maintain good communication throughout the
duration of a project.
It can be quite helpful to develop a written agreement, formal or
informal, among collaborators at the outset of a project, or at least
accept a standard agreement. A diplomatic and efficient approach
may be to refer potential co-authors to a published guide rather
than developing a new set of guidelines for every project (e.g.
Claxton, 2005; Anderson and Boden, 2008). We offer such an
agreement at the end of this editorial.
This step is perhaps taken too rarely, whether because scientists
do not like rigid agreements, feel that developing agreements
wastes time that would better be spent doing research, or that
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.06.003
0006-3207/Ó2014 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Biological Conservation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
developing such an agreement could offend some of the coauthors.
Spending a bit of time at the outset of a project, though, can help
save time by resolving misunderstandings and disagreements later
in a project, and can help avoid irreconcilable disagreements.
Universities and government research departments sometimes
also have their own policies regarding publication. Agreements
may be especially important for multi-disciplinary studies where
authors may have different publication practices.
3. Crafting a coauthor agreement
A good agreement can include the goals of collaboration, roles
of individuals, guidelines for authorship, contingencies and
communication strategies, and methods for handling conflicts,
including conflicts of interest (NIH Office of the Ombudsman;
Bennett and Gadlin, 2012). Creating and abiding by such an
agreement can establish clear expectations and facilitate open
communication and trust, which are critical to collaborative
projects (Albert and Wager, 2003; Weltzin et al., 2006). As a project
develops, the agreement may need to be altered—it should not be
static. Coauthors may need to be added or dropped, and the roles of
coauthors may change, but this should be done through open,
honest, and respectful discussion following the guidelines or intent
of the team’s original agreement (COPE, 2013; Elsevier, 2013).
Relevant to the examples we have highlighted, an agreement
might include:
(a) A statement that prevents one coauthor from obstructing
the progress of a project or the publication of a paper. For
example, an agreement might state that results, conclusions
and other parts of the paper will not be altered without the
agreement of the majority of authors.
(b) An agreement might also say, if the majority of authors,
including the senior author, want to submit a paper for pub-
lication or make revisions to a paper, individual coauthors
may not block its submission, but rather can remove their
names as coauthors if they so desire. Or if a co-author
refuses to allow a paper to be submitted, the majority of
authors can remove this individual’s name as a co-author.
Coauthors who remove their names from the paper could have
their contributions mentioned in the acknowledgements, or per-
haps could ask to have their contributions removed. The key is to
agree to the process before the conflict emerges.
4. Problems may still arise
However, what would happen if a coauthor makes a major con-
tribution to data collection, analysis, or writing, but later asks to
withdraw from a paper or is asked by the others to withdraw?
Could a project agreement be used to allow the team to use the
data, analysis, and writing of the dissenting co-author without
the permission of the dissenting coauthor? What if it is impossible
to fully remove their intellectual contributions to the project or
paper? The answers to these questions are not obvious (Elsevier,
2013). Consider this final example:
A group of five authors carries out a combined field and lab pro-
ject. Author X carries out an essential part of the fieldwork. Dur-
ing the write-up of the project, Author X is dissatisfied with the
project paper, and refuses to allow the paper to be published or
the data to be used. The other four authors want to submit the
paper for publication, but recognize that the paper cannot be
published without the data of Author X. Does the data belong
to the group or the individual authors? Can the majority of
the authors use the data of Author X without his/her
permission? An author’s agreement might be able to provide
some guidance.
Clearly the goal is to avoid these types of conflicts in the first
place. In some cases where trust among coauthors is low, an inde-
pendent colleague or mediator may be able to review an
agreement and correspondence to help defuse an awkward and
potentially acrimonious situation. In situations involving graduate
students, this colleague might be the chair of a department.
There are many other facets that help make collaborations suc-
cessful, and we refer you to four papers cited here (Albert and
Wager, 2003; Weltzin et al., 2006; Bennett et al., 2010; Bennett
and Gadlin, 2012) and information provided by Elsevier’s website
for further advice. In our experience, collaborations are valuable
to the pursuit of science and are usually personally rewarding.
They are a great way to learn new methods, make new friends,
and have enriching experiences. We do not want to discourage col-
laborations—rather we want to encourage effective collaborations
in which people are aware of potential problems and take steps
to avoid and diffuse them before they detract from the value and
fun of the science.
Acknowledgements
The authors appreciate suggestions on this editorial from Phil
Cafaro, Mark Costello, Karen Beard, Robin Pakeman, Richard
Corlett, and Abraham Miller-Rushing.
Appendix A. Coauthor agreement for a scientific project: a basic
outline
Prepared by Richard B. Primack, John A. Cigliano, and E.C.M.
Parsons.
A.1. Overall goals and vision
We have agreed to collaborate in scientific research and publish
our results in a scientific paper (or perhaps several papers). We
agree to the following guidelines as we work together toward this
goal. This agreement ends after the paper is published, data are
archived, and media inquires conclude.
We enter into this agreement voluntarily, and we can leave the
agreement voluntarily as described below.
A.2. Who will do what?
Team members are expected to make contributions as specified
during the formation of the Team. These responsibilities might
include carrying out research, contributing specimens and data,
analyzing data, and writing the paper.
The paper will be led by an acknowledged Project Leader (often
the principle investigator, research group leader, or graduate
supervisor). The Leader will facilitate decision-making and com-
munication among the Team. The Leader may be the person who
started the project, who invited members to join the Team, who
is expected to do the most work on the project, or who is head
of a research group. In some cases, particularly for small groups,
the Project will be managed through collective decisions or some
other method.
Once the Team is formed, any decisions on adding new
co-authors or Team members should be made by consensus rather
than individual decisions.
Data for this project belong to the Team for the purposes of this
paper. Data will be managed by the people who generate them and
shared as needed for analysis. Upon publication, the data will likely
be deposited into a permanent, publicly accessible archive, such as
2Editorial / Biological Conservation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
DataONE (http://www.dataone.org/contribute-data), and in accor-
dance with journal policies. The data will be credited to the people
who created them and will be linked to this paper through the
metadata.
A.3. Authorship, credit, and responsibility
Authorship will be limited to those who have contributed sub-
stantially to the paper. If a member of the Team does not contrib-
ute substantially as initially agreed, that person will be removed as
a coauthor, as determined by the Leader in consultation with the
Team.
The Leader will determine the order of authorship for the coau-
thors based on contributions to the project. In practice the Leader
is often be the first, last or corresponding author.
If appropriate to the journal, the acknowledgements of the
paper will describe each coauthor’s specific contributions. The con-
tributions of other collaborators who are not coauthors will also be
described in the acknowledgements.
All coauthors share some degree of responsibility for the entire
paper as an accurate, verifiable research report. Coauthors are
responsible for the accuracy of their contributions, but may have
only limited responsibility for other results.
All coauthors must give their permission for publication prior to
submission of each version of the paper.
All coauthors can give presentations of this paper after publica-
tion, using material in the paper and dataset, providing they refer-
ence the paper and their co-authors. Ideally, they will also notify
the coauthors of these presentations beforehand.
All coauthors can respond to media inquiries relating to this
paper. Press releases should include the names and contact infor-
mation of all co-authors. Team members should acknowledge the
contributions of other coauthors during interviews and encourage
reporters to contact them.
A.4. Contingencies and communication
The Leader will manage Team communication by organizing
regular communications, such as email updates or phone calls.
The default might be one communication per month, with more
frequent communications when necessary.
All Team members agree to reply to emails and phone call con-
cerning the project, especially drafts of the paper, within a reason-
able period of time, such as within one week.
All Team members agree to notify the rest of the team prior to
sharing the manuscript with people outside the Team. Team mem-
bers will be given a chance to comment prior to sharing.
No Team member can block publication of the paper except
because of concerns related to scientific soundness—e.g., the data
collection, analyses and presentation were done incorrectly. Con-
cerns related to policy, management, or scientific implications
are not grounds for a coauthor to block publication. If a majority
of Team members believe the paper should be published based
on sound science, the paper will move forward. Every reasonable
effort should be made by the Leader and others to reach a consen-
sus on moving forward with a publication.
Team members may voluntarily remove themselves from the
project, and from coauthorship, at any point if they no longer have
time for the project or they disagree with some aspect of the pro-
ject or paper. If a Team member voluntarily leaves the project or is
asked to leave the Team because they are opposed to the paper
being published, the Team members and Leader will need to dis-
cuss with the dissenting member if his/her contributions can still
be used, and perhaps described in the Acknowledgements, or will
have to be removed from the paper.
Team members are free to develop their own collaborations and
directions using the ideas and data in the paper, once it is published.
Team members should make every reasonable effort to inform each
other when starting new collaborations and spin-off projects that
result from this paper. In practice, the Team members may continue
to work together on follow-up projects, but this needs to be dis-
cussed among the group, and should not be assumed.
A.5. Conflict of interest
All Team members will disclose to the Team any real or per-
ceived conflicts of interest related to this project and paper.
All Team members will disclose to the Team whether they or
any close family members or associates will benefit financially
from this project and paper.
Sources of information on this topic:
Barrett, K.A., Funk, C.L., Macrina, F.L. 2005. Awareness of publi-
cation guidelines and the responsible conduct of research.
Accountability in Research 12(3): 193–206.
Bennett, L.M., Gladin, H., Levine-Finley, S., 2010. Collaboration
and team science: a field guide. National Institutes of Health,
Bethesda, Maryland.
CBE Style Manual Committee, 1983.CBE style manual: a guide for
authors, editors, and publishers in the biological sciences. Council
of Biology Editors, 5th edition, Bethesda.
Cozzarelli, N.R., 2004. Responsible authorship of papers in
PNAS. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:
10495.
Huth, E.J. 1986. Guidelines on Authorship of Medical Papers.
Annals of Internal Medicine Feb;104(2): 269–274.
Primack, R.B., J.A. Cigliano, E.C.M. Parsons, 2014. Coauthors gone
bad: how to avoid and deal with the problem. Biological
Conservation.
Weltzin J.F., Belote, R.T., Williams, L.T., Keller, J.K., Engel, E.C.,
2006. Authorship in ecology: attribution, accountability, and
responsibility. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4:
435–441.
References
Albert, T., Wager, E., 2003. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new
researchers. In: The COPE Report 2003. pp. 32–34. Committee on Publication
Ethics.
Anderson, P.A., Boden, S.D., 2008. Ethical considerations of authorship. SAS J. 2, 155–
158.
Bennett, L.M., Gadlin, H., 2012. Collaboration and team science: from theory to
practice. J. Invest. Med. 60, 768–775.
Bennett, L.M., Gadlin, H., Levine-Finley, S., 2010. Collaboration and team science: a
field guide. National Institute of Health, http://teamscience.nih.gov.
Claxton, L.D., 2005. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices,
and guidelines. Mutation Res. 589, 31–45.
COPE, 2013. Cases: authorship. Accessed October 2. <http://publicationethics.org/
category/keywords/authorship>.
CBE Style Manual Committee, 1983. CBE style manual: a guide for authors, editors,
and publishers in the biological sciences. Council of Biology Editors, fifth ed.,
Bethesda.
Elsevier, 2013. Authorship complaints (accessed October 2). <http://
www.elsevier.com/editors/perk/1.-authorship-complaints>.
Kwok, L.S., 2005. The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication
parasitism. J. Med. Ethics 31, 554–556.
Weltzin, J.F., Belote, R.T., Williams, L.T., Keller, J.K., Engel, E.C., 2006. Authorship in
ecology: attribution, accountability, and responsibility. Front. Ecol. Environ. 4,
435–441.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B.F., et al, 2005. The increasing dominance of teams in production
of knowledge. Science 316, 1036–1038.
Editorial / Biological Conservation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx 3
Editor in Chief
Richard B. Primack
⇑
Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
⇑Tel.: +1 617 353 2454; fax: +1 617 353 6340.
E-mail address:primack@bu.edu
John A. Cigliano
Department of Biological Sciences,
Cedar Crest College, Allentown, PA, USA
E.C.M. Parsons
Department of Environmental Science & Policy,
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA
4Editorial / Biological Conservation xxx (2014) xxx–xxx
