Master Zubin, Tenenbaum Evelyn
1Biomedical Ethics Research Program and Center for Regenerative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street, SW, Rochester, MN 55905 USA.
2Albany Law School, 80 New Scotland Avenue, Albany, NY 12208-3494 USA.
Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019 May 30;4:10. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0071-9. eCollection 2019.
A recent commentary argued for arbitration to resolve authorship disputes within academic research settings explaining that current mechanisms to resolve conflicts result in unclear outcomes and institutional power vested in senior investigators could compromise fairness. We argue here that arbitration is not a suitable means to resolve disputes among researchers in academia because it remains unclear who will assume the costs of arbitration, the rules of evidence do not apply to arbitration, and decisions are binding and very difficult to appeal. Instead of arbitration, we advocate for peer-based approaches involving a peer review committee and research ethics consultation to help resolve authorship disagreements. We describe the composition of an institutional peer review committee to address authorship disputes. Both of these mechanisms are found, or can be formed, within academic institutions and offer several advantages to researchers who are likely to shy away from legalistic processes and gravitate towards those handled by their peers. Peer-based approaches are cheaper than arbitration and the experts involved have knowledge about academic publishing and the culture of research in the specific field. Decisions by knowledgeable and neutral experts could reduce bias, have greater authority, and could be appealed. Not only can peer-based approaches be leveraged to resolve authorship disagreements, but they may also enhance collegiality and promote a healthy team environment.
最近的一篇评论主张通过仲裁来解决学术研究领域内的作者身份争议，并解释说当前解决冲突的机制会导致结果不明确，而且资深研究人员所拥有的机构权力可能会损害公正性。我们在此认为，仲裁并非解决学术界研究人员之间争议的合适方式，因为仲裁费用由谁承担仍不明确，证据规则不适用于仲裁，而且仲裁决定具有约束力且很难上诉。我们主张采用基于同行的方法，包括设立同行评审委员会和进行研究伦理咨询，以帮助解决作者身份分歧。我们描述了一个处理作者身份争议的机构同行评审委员会的组成。这两种机制都存在于学术机构中，或者可以在学术机构中形成，对于那些可能回避法律程序而倾向于由同行处理的研究人员来说具有诸多优势。基于同行的方法比仲裁成本更低，而且参与其中的专家了解学术出版以及特定领域的研究文化。由知识渊博且中立的专家做出的决定可以减少偏见，具有更大的权威性，并且可以上诉。基于同行的方法不仅可以用来解决作者身份分歧，还可能增进同事关系，营造健康的团队环境。
