Who should be a coauthor

Over the past two years, I have been leading a collaboration of 4 universities.  We are now writing a bunch of papers and giving talks, so naturally, my graduate students are asking me who should be included as coauthors?.  Almost three decades ago, this same question came up while I worked at Bell Labs as part of a large team.  Since there was pressure to publish, conflict was inevitable when a researcher was dropped from the author list.

One of my collaborators found a document that spelled out reasonable guidelines.  I have not been able to locate my copy -- since it was on paper, I probably lost it --  but here is what I remember.

Collaboration is integral to science, reaping rewards that exceed the sum of individual efforts.  Success thus requires an understanding between collaborators that researchers who do the work can expect to be coauthors.  There are many types of contributions, and all are critical, so it is pointless to argue which are more important.  To  this end, the criteria for coauthorship can be parsed into five broad classes.  Coauthorship requires that the individual contribute substantively to at least three of these five.  The five criteria, in typical chronological order follow:

1.  Having the idea.  All research is initiated by a question and a rough outline of activities that will lead to an answer.  For example, recent data show evidence that the earth is warming.  A stroke of insight leads to the realization that a temperature record is literally frozen in place in polar ice caps that goes way back in time.  The scientist then imagines ways that a core can be extracted and how they will be evaluated to determine a historic temperature profile.

2.  Getting support for the work.  Research requires resources.  An individual like Albert Einstein had deep insights and worked out his ideas at home after work as a patent examiner.  In this case, he supported his own research.  Collecting ice core samples, on the other hand, requires expensive expeditions, specialized equipment, and technical expertise.  A scientist proposing such experiments to a funding agency must succinctly pose the question to be answered, provide a meticulous plan for experimental protocols with well-defined timelines, and estimate the cost of the project, including manpower needs.  Getting funding is a time-consuming activity with low chances of success, so is an important ingredient to research. 

3.  Doing the research.  Once the idea is generated and funding secured for the project, someone has to do the work.  To get credit for doing the research, one must do a substantial chunk of the work and should also contribute both intellect and muscle.  If a technician is given specific instructions, such as turn this knob and write down this number, that doesn't count even if (s)he spends a significant amount of time and effort.  Acting like a machine taking data and being a computer following code is not the creative activity we call research.  On the other hand, interacting with a colleague or advisor who guides the direction of the work warrants co-authorship even if that individual did not work in the lab, analyze data or wrote code.

4.  Writing the paper.  All researchers who have made a contribution to a piece of work will typically provide input to the manuscript.  Writing the paper implies a significant amount of work that includes interpreting the results and tying it all together.  Proofing the manuscript is required of coauthors but correcting typos is not sufficient to count as writing the paper.  Adding an overall wrapping to the work that ties it together is part of the creative process.

5.  Understanding the paper.  This is less of an activity and more the result of being involved in the day-to-day work in generating results and writing the paper.  Each coauthor should have a good enough grasp of the science to be able to explain the work to other scientists.  There are always exceptions, especially when doing  interdisciplinary work.  A chemist may need to muster loads of creative juices to figure out how to make a compound that a Physicist measures to get the result.  It is unreasonable to require the physicist to understand synthetic chemistry and the chemist should not be required to understand relativistic quantum mechanics.  If the chemist writes a strictly synthesis paper, the physicist need not be a coauthor unless the reason for making the material is integral to the argument for making the material.  Similarly, the chemist need not be included as a coauthor in a series of physics papers that use the chemist's material.  However, if the chemist makes a material with the specific requirements for the physics experiment, that counts as creative input, and the chemist should be included as a coauthor provided he or she has contributed to two other categories.

These guidelines are not meant to be applied as absolute rules.  Nor should they be used as an excuse to cut off a potential coauthor.    Rather, they should be the starting point for discussions.  There are undoubtedly many exceptions for a diversity of reasons, so treat each of these thoughtfully.  When in doubt, err on the side of including your collaborators as coauthors.  It never hurts to add a coauthor to a paper.  However, it is unethical to add undeserving authors.

There are many reasons for not adding coauthors.  Years ago it was common practice to add the name of a highly-respected colleague to paper to give it added credibility.  As a result, high-profile publications now ask who did what in the reported research.  Clearly, it is unethical to make deals with collaborators to add my name to your papers in expectations of reciprocation.

Then there are the fuzzy areas.  For example, it often happens that a researcher worked on a project side-by-side with team mates, but his or her part didn't pan out.  If this person is involved in writing the paper and has a firm grasp of the results, then he or she should be a coauthor.

I am sure that you can think of many exceptions and gray areas.  Treat them thoughtfully and you will have good collaborators for a lifetime.  Let me know what you think.

Annual Review of Faculty

I will once again be doing annual reviews of our faculty. Here I share my views on the process; and, describe the metrics I use to make evaluations.

There are three general categories; (1) teaching, (2) research and (3) service to the university and the profession. The annual review is meant to give the faculty feedback about their performance for a particular year, and is one factor in determining raises. However, given budget cuts, there will be no raises in the foreseeable future.

While a faculty member may have a long and distinguished career, it is possible to have up and down years based on the simple fact that there are fluctuations in the metrics; one year a faculty member may have 10 excellent papers followed by a year with none. However, the annual reviews will not fluctuate as much as the metrics given that fluctuations are inevitable and usually not a sign of a problem.

Teaching is evaluated based on several pieces of information. The syllabus shows how the course is organized and faculty usually provide a narrative on new ideas that they explored to enhance learning outcomes as well as student feedback in the form of course evaluations.

I am strictly opposed to standardized teaching evaluation forms because they often lead to meaningless comparisons between professors in the form of numbers that each students assign using very different criteria. I marvel at the well-reasoned forms that each of our professors produce and the unique information that they solicit. Since each faculty member may be using different approaches, a single number assigned by a student does not tell a meaningful story. Thus, I usually read every comment made by each student - even in classes with 250 students. It takes lots of time, but provides quality information with which I can get a better sense of how well our courses are working.

As a case in point, several years ago, I scanned through a bunch of evaluations of a young professor who was teaching a large section with hundreds of students and noticed two things. The mean was slightly below average (i.e. the typical student choose average or below average when comparing this professor to others at our university) and the distribution was bimodal with a quarter of the students giving him the highest marks and three quarters giving him below average ratings.

I gained great insights from the correlations between the numbers and the narratives. The typical student who gave a low ranking said the course was "unfair" because it was too hard. The students giving him higher marks stated that the course was challenging but the professor spent lots of time explaining complex concepts to the students during class as well as during office hours. In addition, this professor scheduled non-mandatory help sessions so that students could ask questions and get extra help.

A picture emerged of a dedicated teacher who expected excellence but was willing to expend a great deal of additional effort to make sure that the students learned. While his average course evaluation was lower than many of the other faculty in our department, I judged him to be a more dedicated teacher than those whose evaluations were high and the comments uniformly positive about the fact that the class was "fun" and "easy."

Research is more difficult to judge. The fact that a funding source is willing to pay top dollar to a given faculty member is a good indication that this individual and his/her work is considered useful or interesting. Similarly, papers that make it through the peer review process at good journals have convinced an editor and a few reviewers of correctness and importance. If a piece of work gets many citations, then it shows that people are reading the papers and finding them useful. Thus, a blend of these factors provides a good indicator of research productivity and quality.

However, these indicators can have the opposite meaning. For example, a paper may be cited many times as an example of bad science. Or, an individual with lots of citations may be a technician who provides specialized samples to many research groups. While such a person is contributing to the science by providing samples, the number of citations may not be a sign that the work is particularly interesting or creative.

Lots of funding is not always a sign of good science. A company may grant big bucks to a researcher to test a trivial property of a product. In contrast, a small grant from the National Science Foundation for work by a single PI who is challenging our perceptions of the nature of space-time would carry much more weight in my mind.

I try to consider all these factors together when evaluating the research productivity of a faculty member, which includes learning a little bit about their research. I may look at the h-index and or the numbers of publications or citations per dollar spent, or other ratios to develop an impression of the research quality. Faculty members who have attained Fellow status in a professional society get such honors from significant lifetime contributions to their fields, so fellowship in a society factors into the annual review. In the end, I make a value judgement that may or may not be in line with what others may think. I accept the fact that the process is far from perfect.

Finally, there is service. Every faculty member is expected to contribute to the operations of the department and the university. Faculty members sit on tenure committees, thesis examination committees, search committees, and do all kinds of thankless tasks such as recruiting students, writing reports for the administration, and doing self studies that support our claims that we are a high quality department relative to our peers. I look for not only quantity of service, but the impact that it has on our department and university.

Service to the profession takes the form of membership on program committees for conferences, being on editorial boards of journals, reviewing papers for journals or proposals for funding agencies, organizing conferences, acting as an external examiner at other universities, and serving on panels that take advantage of an individual's scientific expertise. An active scientist does this kind of service as a matter of daily routine. I thus expect to see a substantial professional service component from each faculty member.

To make a final assessment, all of these factors are taken into account. A positive annual review requires significant accomplishments in at least two of the three major areas, with emphasis on research and education. What makes my job especially difficult is that our department is very strong. All faculty members are doing high-quality research, are well known in their fields, are well funded and are advising undergraduate/graduate students.

I have a few weeks break until I need to get around to this unpleasant task, which takes 5 full days to complete. For now, I am enjoying my break doing some new physics, which includes having completed an interesting calculation that was motivated by my proofing of one of Shoresh's manuscripts. Before the intensity of the new semester begins, I need to proof and submit a few more manuscripts for publication, as well as review a few more papers.

This past year has been a local maximum with a record 12 publications in refereed journals (almost 10% of my lifetime 123 publications), not to mention a bunch of invited and contributed talks. Now I will need to get back to work to maintain this momentum. But not until I take a day off to enjoy family, friends, and this wonderful place we call home.

A silver lining

We have been on the east coast visiting with family in the Philadelphia area. What should have been a fun time has for me been colored with sadness and anxiety. First, there is the issue of what to do with my 95-year-old father.

He is highly independent, living on his own, cooking for himself, and competently driving a car. In fact, in the summer, he and his buddies (all younger than him) routinely drive to Cape May - a Victorian beach town - for a day of walking on the beach and eating out.

He is so energetic that he volunteers twice a week to work at the senior lunch, collecting the $1.50 cost of the meal, and making sure that the books are balanced. He even helps deliver food to the eighty-year-olds who need walkers.

Ten years ago, we decided to build an addition to our home so that my father could move in with us. He refused. I don't blame him. He has friends and activities to keep him busy. He routinely takes part in activities at the Ukrainian Church and the Ukrainian Center in the Fox Chase area of north of Philly. Pullman, on the other hand, has for all practical purposes zero Ukrainians for him to befriend. Though we are here for him, work is a large part of our days, so he would be bored to death without our company. In Philly, he is an active part of his micro-community.

My father is concerned that his driver's license will not be renewed, making his present lifestyle impossible. We are also concerned that as he gets older, he will be less able to take care of himself. Our agonizing decision comes down to a choice between him continuing to live alone with the chance that he may injure himself, but otherwise have a happy life; or, moving him to Pullman, and dooming him to certain misery. In my mind, both choices are far from ideal.

Our concerns were renewed a few days ago when my father fell (when alone in his apartment) as a result of a dizzy spell. He was bruised but otherwise seemed unharmed. However, it was painful for him to walk, and his nurse (who visits him occasionally at home for blood tests), recommended that he get an X-ray to make sure that he did not fracture his hip. Fortunately, we had made plans to have lunch with good friends of ours from Yardley. After lunch, John - an orthopedic surgeon, and Camille - a physical therapist, checked my fathers injuries and felt that they were not serious, but ordered X-rays just in case. We went to a local hospital in an expedited process - care of our friends. He was indeed not badly injured

This whole process reminded us of my father's precarious situation and the decisions that would have to be made. Unfortunately, every option, other than the status quo, is unacceptable to my father. No senior living homes, no roommates, no moving to Pullman, etc. So for now, we are trying to find ways to make his life simpler in his present living arrangements.

In the meantime, we have been driving extensively to get between my fathers place, and the various in-laws. As a result, I have been feeling depressed and anxious about not having time to work, not to mention my motion sickness. Yesterday afternoon, after arriving at my sister-in-law's vacation home in Delaware, I finally sat down at my computer to work, only to come down with a migraine headache moments later. My symptoms put me out of commission for the rest of the evening.

This morning, I awoke feeling physically well, but mentally exhausted with thoughts of the piles of work that has accumulated. As I was working, I got two pieces of good news within a few minutes of each other.

First, I was notified that my NSF proposal on sum rules has been recommended for funding. However, there are several questions that I first need to address before approval. This will be my first priority, so my other work will need to wait. Hope my graduate students understand my inaccessibility during this period of time.

Secondly, while reading through the email from NSF, my email dinged with a message that a third paper was accepted in our series of papers on Nathan's work on photo mechanical liquid crystal elastomers. An excerpt of comments from each reviewer follows.

REVIEWER 1

The manuscript provides an in-depth model and related discussion on the deformation mechanism of azo containing liquid crystal elastomer upon a light trigger. The authors incorporated in the model heat effects as related to absorption and diffusion during and after exposure in the absorption band of the azo compound. To my opinion this was the first time that it was described so extensively rather than mentioning that heat effects might also play role next to the photo-isomerization reaction. For this reason it is my opinion that the paper should be published in the Journal of the Optical Society of America...

REVIEWER 2
In the manuscript “Modeling the mechanisms of the photomechanical response of a nematic liquid crystal elastomer”, authors have done the modeling to explain the plausible mechanisms involved in photomechanical response of nematic liquid crystal elastomer. In the previous report: N. J. Dawson et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 28, 1916 (2011), authors have reported the experimental determination of mechanisms of photomechanical effects in a nematic liquid crystal elastomer in a particular device geometry. More interestingly, in the present report the models have been initially proposed and then used to compare with experimental results and to evaluate related material parameters. Undoubtedly, the theoretical modeling, comparison with experimental results and related explanations are up to the mark. Moreover, the report does not only demonstrate the fundamental mechanisms but also provide the platform for design of optical devices based on photomechanical effect and hence seems to be greatly useful for liquid crystal community as well as other related fields.
On the basis of the originality and novelty of the work presented in this report, I feel that it would be really of worth to keep this article in JOSA B. Therefore, I recommend it for the publication in JOSA B.

I have to run!