Graduate Group in the Art and Archaeology of the Mediterranean World
Universitv of Pennsylvania
The following policy on coauthorship of published research has been approved by the Graduate Group in the Art and Archaeology of the Mediterranean World for implementation beginning with the academic year 1998-1999.
Policy on Coauthorship of Research
1. Procedures
At the point where a co operative research project is being planned or otherwise undertaken by a member of the faculty and a graduate student or graduate students of the University, the specific concern of the authorship of published results should be addressed before the inception of the project itself. The matter of authorship my be discussed in any research project that specifically envisages publication as part of the project. If for any reason this advance agreement is not pragmatically possible, the division of responsibilities and credits should be discussed in detail as soon as reasonably possible after the inception of the project. Both the division of labor on any given project and the matter of respective credit should be clearly outlined in a written document that is agreed to by both the Faculty member and the student(s). This document should include as clear an indication of the ranking of primary and secondary authors as is possible given the design of the research project at its inception. The faculty member(s) and student(s) should be aware of the possibility that the project itself might modify its shape or direction, and that the contributors to the project might change the nature of their contributions (for example, even to the point of withdrawing from the joint undertaking). As the project proceeds to publication, therefore, provision should also be made for a re evaluation of both the nature of the respective contributions to the research and the credit to be assigned to the authors. Finally, as the research proceeds through the final stages of publication, the various authors should have the right, within reasonable confines, to check their contributions to the publication manuscripts (or equivalents) and to check their contributions to the various proof versions (should this be applicable).
2. Criteria for Coauthorship
In their discussion of the problem of coauthorship in joint research projects, both faculty and students should be able to claim credit only for work actually done. Credit should be given in a manner that is appropriate to the work done and with respect for the conventions of the discipline. A major contribution such as the collation of a substantial portion of data, sharing in the writing of an article or book, the contribution of an idea or conception that is central to the general argument, should merit some type of formally recognized coauthorship. Contributions that are of a minor nature (for example, suggestions of various avenues of research, corrections or modifications of specific points of fact) should be credited in the appropriate manner, either in prefatory or introductory remarks to the whole publication, or by way of specific reference in a note or a footnote.
Specific criteria that might be used to assess contributory 'authorship' to a given project are necessarily peculiar to it, but some of the following general criteria should be borne in mind. If the creation of an idea or conception, or an interpretation of evidence, is the principal one, or one of the principal ones that is the reason for publication, then those who were directly responsible for such research and writing should be credited as principal 'authors'. The collecting of data at the direction of, and under the aegis, of a faculty member, however, would not usually constitute grounds of 'authorship.' In the middle ground, however, there are many gray areas that fall between the collection and assemblage of data and points where a student researcher might well be doing considerably more than technical tasks such as these. Such situations are so diverse and varied in nature, that it is best that the faculty member and the graduate student(s) concerned attempt to agree in advance on how these specific cases directly relevant to their project are to be handled (see 'procedures' above). Finally, as regards the actual composition of a paper, article, report, or book (or similar 'publication') a clear distinction should be drawn between the creative process of the interpretive writing and other duties such as checking and editorial duties. The latter might well receive 'minor' credit through prefatory remarks or notes, but the former deserves some type of formal authorial recognition.
In research in Mediterranean Archaeology the co operative nature of research engaged in by faculty and graduate students is governed by fairly standard conventions, notably with respect to participation in archaeological excavations. The type of access that the student or the graduate student has to excavated materials, and the kind of involvement in the publication(s) of the site and its artifacts, is ordinarily governed not only by whatever explicit arrangements are made by the director of the excavation, but also by overriding conventions that apply to the excavation as a whole (for example, in local official or governmental permits). Whatever agreements that faculty and students from the University make concerning publication and authorial credit are necessarily subservient to these overriding conventions. Wherever possible, however, students and faculty should reach an agreement before undertaking a research project with publication as its goal, and should put that agreement in writing.
In the description of 'procedures' and 'authorship' above, it is assumed that the same conventions governing 'procedures' and 'criteria of coauthors hip also govern 'publication' in new modes of communicating research and research findings, such as web pages, internet journals, and similar kinds of electronic media.
3. Dispute Resolution Process
If either a faculty member or a graduate student in the Graduate Group in the Art and Archaeology of the Mediterranean World senses that a dispute over authorship is emerging, either person, or both together, should inform the Chair of the Graduate Group. If at all possible, however, the faculty member and the graduate student(s) should the attempt to resolve potential disputes over authorship first, both by reference to the original agreements concerning shared work and by discussing the specific issues that have caused the dispute. Should this course of action fad, the matters at issue should be conveyed to the Chair of the Graduate Group who will then examine them. The Chair shall then report the matter to the faculty of the Graduate Group as a matter of business. The Graduate Chair win then suggest a resolution to the dispute, and seek confirmation of this decision from the faculty of the Graduate Group. Should this course of action fail, the Chair of the Graduate Group will convey the essentials of the dispute to the Office of the Vice Provost for Graduate Education. En all cases, the process should be as expeditious as reasonably possible, in order to avoid any unnecessary impediments to the normal progress to publication on the part of the author(s).
Similarly, the process of dispute resolution should be made available to students from outside the University who come to be involved in projects sponsored by the University. It is not unusual, for example, for an excavation to involve the participation of graduate students from other institutions. If disputes arise in these circumstances the same procedures should be followed to expedite their resolution as are outlined above.
In the case that the Chair of the Graduate Group is himself or herself involved in a dispute over coauthorship, he or she must recuse himself or herself from the position of Chair for the purpose of a meeting of the Faculty of the Graduate Group at which another member of the Graduate Group Faculty will be appointed by the Group to adjudicate the matter according to the procedures for resolution as outlined above. Such a meeting should be held with within a period of time soon enough after the emergence of the dispute, so as reasonably to meet the criterion of 'expedition' for the whole process of resolution as outlined above.