Analysis of the ethical issues in authorship of collaborative research. Observations inspired by the historical case study of Gerard L. Blaes' (Blasius) claim to sole authorship of ‘Anatome medullae spinalis’
Katarzyna Pękacka-Falkowska, Danuta Raj, Jakub Węglorz
{"title":"Analysis of the ethical issues in authorship of collaborative research. Observations inspired by the historical case study of Gerard L. Blaes' (Blasius) claim to sole authorship of ‘Anatome medullae spinalis’","authors":"Katarzyna Pękacka-Falkowska, Danuta Raj, Jakub Węglorz","doi":"10.1002/ase.2435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This paper discusses the historical context of collaborative research and authorship disputes, exemplified by the complex relationship between Dutch anatomist and physician Gerard L. Blaes and his East-Central European mentee, Daniel Gödtke, during the study of medulla spinalis. The study employs historical analysis to unravel the dynamics of scholarly collaboration, emphasizing the significance of mentorship in scientific progress and the communal nature of knowledge exchange. This historical analysis is based on primary sources and historical records. It underscores Blaes's strategy to circumvent public confrontations regarding the authorship of the seminal work ‘Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium’ (1666). As a teacher, he facilitated his student's participation in a public disputation to avert public authorship conflicts over the book. This ultimately led to the publication of two distinct versions of ‘Anatome medullae spinalis.’ The first one was co-authored by the mentor and his mentee, while the latter was solely attributed to the mentor. This historical narrative raises essential questions about attributing individual contributions in medical sciences, echoing concerns still pertinent in contemporary academia. Additionally, it makes visible the power dynamics inherent in faculty–students relationships and the potential repercussions of authorship disputes on scholars' reputations. By drawing parallels between historical and modern authorship dilemmas, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on equitable authorship in scientific research and publishing. It not only highlights a historical precedent for the complex dynamics of mentor–mentee collaborations and authorship disputes but also illuminates how these practices continue to influence contemporary academic and publishing customs.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":"17 5","pages":"944-953"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ase.2435","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This paper discusses the historical context of collaborative research and authorship disputes, exemplified by the complex relationship between Dutch anatomist and physician Gerard L. Blaes and his East-Central European mentee, Daniel Gödtke, during the study of medulla spinalis. The study employs historical analysis to unravel the dynamics of scholarly collaboration, emphasizing the significance of mentorship in scientific progress and the communal nature of knowledge exchange. This historical analysis is based on primary sources and historical records. It underscores Blaes's strategy to circumvent public confrontations regarding the authorship of the seminal work ‘Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium’ (1666). As a teacher, he facilitated his student's participation in a public disputation to avert public authorship conflicts over the book. This ultimately led to the publication of two distinct versions of ‘Anatome medullae spinalis.’ The first one was co-authored by the mentor and his mentee, while the latter was solely attributed to the mentor. This historical narrative raises essential questions about attributing individual contributions in medical sciences, echoing concerns still pertinent in contemporary academia. Additionally, it makes visible the power dynamics inherent in faculty–students relationships and the potential repercussions of authorship disputes on scholars' reputations. By drawing parallels between historical and modern authorship dilemmas, this study contributes to ongoing discussions on equitable authorship in scientific research and publishing. It not only highlights a historical precedent for the complex dynamics of mentor–mentee collaborations and authorship disputes but also illuminates how these practices continue to influence contemporary academic and publishing customs.
本文讨论了合作研究的历史背景和作者权之争,荷兰解剖学家和医生杰拉德-L-布莱斯(Gerard L. Blaes)与其东中欧导师丹尼尔-戈德克(Daniel Gödtke)在脊髓研究期间的复杂关系就是例证。该研究通过历史分析来揭示学术合作的动态,强调了师徒关系在科学进步中的重要意义以及知识交流的公共性。这种历史分析以原始资料和历史记录为基础。它强调了布莱斯为规避公众对开创性著作《Anatome medullae spinalis, et nervorum inde provenientium》(1666 年)作者的质疑而采取的策略。作为一名教师,他帮助自己的学生参加了一场公开辩论,以避免因该书的作者身份而引发的公开冲突。这最终导致了《Anatome medullae spinalis》两个不同版本的出版。第一个版本由导师和他的学生共同撰写,而后一个版本则完全归于导师。这一历史叙事提出了有关医学科学中个人贡献归属的基本问题,与当代学术界仍在关注的问题不谋而合。此外,它还揭示了师生关系中固有的权力动态以及著作权争议对学者声誉的潜在影响。通过将历史和现代的作者权困境相提并论,本研究为正在进行的关于科学研究和出版中公平作者权的讨论做出了贡献。它不仅强调了师徒合作和作者身份争议复杂动态的历史先例,还阐明了这些做法如何继续影响当代学术和出版习俗。
期刊介绍:
Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.