A query on the ethics of authorship

In our newest "how can we help you?" thread, a grad student writes:

What are the ethics of publishing a paper/idea that originated from someone else, given that they consent?

Suppose I came up with a paper for class X. The paper would contribute positively to the debate, and so there are good reasons (independent of the benefits to whoever is the author) for the paper to be out there. However, I don't want to publish the paper because I'm worried it might affect my career (e.g. it defends a political issue like abortion, or it's on a religious topic, or it takes a controversial stance on gender which could result in backlash, etc.). Suppose my friend/classmate/spouse, however, thinks the idea is great and would benefit from publishing it (e.g. they are applying to religious schools who appreciate a conservative stance on political issues).

In short, we think it is good for the community if the paper is published. It dis-benefits me to publish it, but benefits my friend. Given this, is it permissible to give the paper to my friend and for my friend to publish it?

We have two main ethical worries. One worry is that it is objectionable because it is originally my work and my idea. Contra this worry, however, it seems permissible to give my property to others. So, if I consent to giving the idea/paper, then the idea/paper should belong to my friend, who can then use it as his/her own property.

Another worry is that since the main bulk of the work is done by me, it is unfair that my friend benefits. Contra this worry, however, it is not unfair to me since I consent and perhaps I also benefit in other ways (e.g. I get to see the idea out there). In addition, the friend would also have to revise it (especially if major revisions are required after comments from reviewers), and so the friend still contributes.

What are people's thoughts on this?

I have to confess to being very puzzled by this query. The OP seems to be presupposing that the only morally relevant features of the case concern abstract questions of individual property rights and potential unfairness toward their friend. But surely these aren't the only morally relevant things: when one enters a profession (such as academia), one is bound by settled norms of conduct which are grounded in considerations of fairness and rights of others. For example, when one sells a product, one has an obligation not to engage in false advertising, as false advertising takes advantage of third-parties. By a similar token, when you enter into a university, you're bound by a code of student conduct to do your own work and not pass off others' work as your own--even if they give it to you. The same is true in academia more generally: if you enter into the profession, you are expected to publish your own work, not the work of others.

Another reader submitted the following reply:

Everything hangs on the details of the case. If your friend is taken a draft paper you wrote and then submitting it (even revised) as their own, then you have crossed a line. You should read about publishing ethics and scandals in science - in some countries scientists buy papers. This looks a bit like that. If on the other hand, you have drawn attention to a topic and your friend is now going to write something on it, that seems fine. Perhaps ask yourself: would you want this to be made public - including your involvement? If not, then do not do it.

Indeed, this seems exactly right. Perhaps the OP has a libertarian conception of individual liberty and property rights--I'm not sure. But even a libertarian thinks one is morally bound to keep one's contracts, and a decision to enter into a profession surely carries all kinds of explicit and implicit contractual requirements to obey professional norms, such as that people publish their own work. Finally, if the author doesn't want to publish controversial work under their own name out of concern for their career, there's surely a better option--one that many scholars have done over the course of history: publishing under a pseudonym (although it's a bit controversial, there's even a place for this in philosophy). But these are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Comments

[anon]

Sort of linked to the observation Marcus has already raised, but a different spin: the OP frames this all in terms of whether a paper is their "property". But I've never worked with a journal submission system that asks me at the start if the paper is my "property".

Instead, they ask me to write down the title, a few other things, and the *names of the authors*. And it seems to me that if someone wrote a paper and "gave" it to me, and then I submitted it to a journal and listed myself as the author, I'd be lying.

[Anti-Climacus]

I think publishing under a pseudonym is indeed the way to go. OP could perhaps also consider co-publishing with their friend, using a pseudonym for themselves and providing their friend's real name as a "corresponding author". I think this would be justified if the friend ends up investing a significant amount of work in writing down the paper etc.

I'm wondering if anyone sees issues with (co-)publishing a paper in a "regular" journal (not just the Journal of Controversial Ideas). Historically, lots of philosophers have published under pseudonyms (e.g. to criticize the church), and non-academic authors publish under pseudonyms a lot as well. But neither of these were/are bound by contemporary norms surrounding academic transparency. Would these norms prevent that? And is the possibility of viewpoint discrimination a reason to violate these norms?

[Michel]

No.

You can publish it pseudonymously. You can sit on it for a while until you feel comfortable having it associated with you. You can encourage someone else to write their own paper taking the same angle on the same topic.

But you can't Cyrano de Bergerac (/sockpuppet) your paper.

(Quite apart from anything else, think of the effect it would have on your partner's career were the sockpuppeting discovered. Depending on the particulars of its use, it might even be grounds for dismissal, denial or revocation of tenure, etc.)

[CH]

I see no problem at all with "giving" a paper to one's friend to publish. Presumably, the friend will respond to the referee comments (etc.), so they will do something. But even if they don't do anything, I think it's fine.

Another point: this will clearly not harm anyone. It's nothing that should keep you up at night.

[Baffled]

@CH. This clearly will harm others. Imagine the paper lands in Phil Review. The person who did not write it would gain significant undeserved advantages. Further imagine this person is on the job market!

When I look at someone’s CV I’m guided by the norms saying they wrote the publications listed on it. What on earth would the value of a CV be if such basic authorship norms were violated?

[don't]

@CH: not harm anyone? But it does/would. It would harm all the people on the market who don't have paper-giving-away friends, and have to write their own papers using their own time.

In general, I agree with the above comments: even if it did not directly harm people (although again, I think it does), it would still count as dishonesty.

[Assistant Professor]

Publishing norms in other disciplines often ask for specific author contribution statements (which are published as part of the paper). Perhaps it would be beneficial for philosophy and philosophy journals to do something similar, especially as co-authorship is becoming increasingly adopted in the field (which I believe to be a good thing) so that authors get proper credit for their contributions.

I could easily imagine a scenario in which two people discuss a topic and one determines they do not want to publish on it for a variety of reasons but the other asks for their permission to pursue a publication on said topic, and may even include ideas their interlocutor raised in the paper (ideally with at least some anonymized attribution in a footnote of the source). But handing someone a paper to revise and submit as their own is plagiarism, even if that person wants it submitted by the other person.

[Michel]

A good rule of thumb is how you treat undergrad papers. If you'd fail a sockuppeted paper for plagiarism, you shouldn't do the same yourself.