The advantages of peer review over arbitration for resolving authorship disputes

Abstract

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.

Completeness of reporting acupuncture interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Review of adherence to the STRICTA statement

“…In the introduction, you mentioned, “This will help to improve the reporting of future trials and facilitate their applicability in clinical practice and the reproducibility of future research.” However, I believe that it is not enough to point out that there are reporting issues without reflecting on what kind of strategies should journals follow to turn things around. As you probably know, some recent experiments are testing out different editorial strategies 4 5 6 7 8 as well as different scoping and systematic reviews/surveys exploring this issue.…”

Ethical Authorship In Research Publication

“…Peer review, involvement of ethics experts, and outside third party intervention allow for impartial investigation and create a prior deterrence to misconduct that might take root where impunity is anticipated. 31 "People who now have the seniority to try to determine or influence authorship credit could have that power reduced if alternative dispute resolution services were well known and readily available to authors." 32 Kings College recommended arbitration and right of appeal as especially important for vulnerable short-term researchers, relying on a designated external person or panel to avoid any conflict of interest.…”

Authorship disputes and patient research participation: collaborating across backgrounds

“…Addressing the vulnerability of short-term researchers who may leave a project team, Kings College researchers recommended arbitration and appeal for dispute resolution, with consideration for potential conflict of interest addressed by identifying an external person or panel to make impartial determinations (Newman and Jones, 2006). Peer review, including involvement of an ethics expert, is also suggested as an alternative to mediation or arbitration, utilizing an outside third party to investigate and complete a full review of the issues, conducted transparently and with avenues for appeal (Master and Tenenbaum, 2019).…”