Being grossly unfair to your collaborators
ThemesBeing grossly unfair to your collaborators
What is this about?
Why is this important?
Research collaborations can occur between different partners, such as different departments within the same institution, different institutions, teams from academia and industry and teams from different countries. At the outset of the partnership, there may be varying expectations of how the responsibilities and benefits of the research will be distributed. This is especially relevant in the case of academic-industrial partnerships. 2 Multicentre research based on collaborations between the Global North and South may also pose special challenges, because of the differences between the infrastructure, resources and negotiating power between the partners. 3 Not addressing the concerns of each partner could lead to misunderstandings and disagreements during later stages of the research.
Based on the principles of fairness and distributive justice, all collaborators should ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed proportionately. The benefits of the research may take various forms such access to a deliverable product, career advancement of researchers, authorships and acknowledgements, local capacity building and others. These should be anticipated beforehand, and a consensus reached on how each partner can share in the outcomes. Similarly, the burdens and risks involved, such as personal risks to participants and field researchers, institutional investments in research and risks associated with providing and exporting data should be distributed as fairly as possible, in order to avoid the exploitation of one or more partners. Not doing so, or deviating from initial agreements on benefit sharing, constitutes a questionable research practice.For whom is this important?
What are the best practices?
Concern for research collaborators and those involved in research forms an important tenet of the ECoC. 4 In the spirit of respect and collegiality, it is essential that decisions regarding benefits and burdens be made after sufficient deliberation with the different teams.
According to the ECoC, all involved partners should agree in advance on important aspects of the research, such as the goals and outcomes. 4 The attribution of credits (such as authorships) also form important benefits, and should be decided in consultation with all collaborators. The Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations 5 states that all involved partners should reach an agreement at the outset, and later as needed, as to how the outcomes of the research, research data and authorship and publication responsibilities will be handled. The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) also offers best practice guidelines on how to handle authorship disputes, should they arise. 6In Detail
References:
1. Integrity in research collaborations: The Montreal Statement. Lancet. 2013;382(9901):1310. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62126-1
2. S G, B N, K D. Differing Perceptions Concerning Research Integrity Between Universities and Industry: A Qualitative Study. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(5):1421-1436. doi:10.1007/S11948-017-9965-4
3. RM R, A T, M DC, et al. Challenges of non-commercial multicentre North-South collaborative clinical trials. Trop Med Int Health. 2013;18(2):237-241. doi:10.1111/TMI.12036
4. The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed October 11, 2021. www.allea.org
5. 3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. Montreal Statement on Research Integrity in Cross-Boundary Research Collaborations. 2013;(May):2013. http://www.researchintegrity.org/Statements/Montreal Statement English.pdf
6. Albert T, Wager E. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. Published online September 1, 2009. doi:10.24318/COPE.2018.1.1Kris dierickx, Roshni Jegan, Joshua Gualtieri contributed to this theme. Latest contribution was Jun 12, 2024
