3 ms·
> But not being included as an author on a paper, or being included when you didn't contribute that much? I've been in both situations and in some cases, I was
by webmaven 6y ago
> But not being included as an author on a paper, or being included when you didn't contribute that much? I've been in both situations and in some cases, I was completely fine with it; in others I was a bit miffed (mostly because of the same interpersonal frictions that happen everywhere where people work together) - but in none of those I would call it anywhere near 'fraud' or even 'dishonest'.
As I understand it, ghosting becomes a more significant issue when it enables the omitted author to peer-review their co-authors' papers (and vice-versa) without disclosure of the conflict of interest.
- roel_v 6y agoshrug Sure, theoretically, but someone who wants to ensure a positive review can just as easily collude with someone who didn't do any of the work. And then still - yes it's possible that a completely bogus paper gets signed off on by a dishonest conspirator, but the editor should see the discrepancy between that and the reviews of the other authors, and dig deeper. But the real problems start in the grey zone; like when you're on the fence between 'reject' and 'major revisions'. There is no 'objective' truth there and quite honestly as an author it's a crap shoot and always has been. It sucks the first few times it happens but none of leads to 'peer review being broken'.
- nl 6y agoTo add to this - there are plenty of issues with peer review, but someone deliberately avoiding an authorship so they can peer review seems low down the list of real world problems.