BackgroundDisputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.Main bodyWhen authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals’ authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.ConclusionRather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members.

中文翻译：

---

通过调解和仲裁解决著作权纠纷


背景关于作者身份的争议日益增多。本文探讨了研究人员在解决作者权争议时的选择。关于作者权纠纷的讨论通常涉及如何预防纠纷，但很少涉及如何解决纠纷。有限的争议解决方案对个人和更大的研究团体都造成了伤害。主体当出版后出现作者权争议时，大多数现有指南建议作者解决他们之间的争议。但这不太可能发生，因为团队成员之间往往存在很大的权力差异，而机构（例如大学、资助机构）不太可能对所有团队成员拥有权威。其他处理协作创作者信用问题的协作学科可以为科学作者身份提供模型。仲裁或调解可以为目前很少存在的作者权纠纷提供解决方案。由于作者承认期刊有权对提交给期刊的稿件做出决定，因此期刊可以很好地促进替代性争议解决程序。 结论 研究人员和期刊不应将作者权争议视为必须逐案处理的罕见事件，而应认为潜在的纠纷是可以预测、可以预防和解决的。可以为科学合作者和/或期刊提供替代性争议解决服务的独立机构可以迅速帮助研究界，特别是最弱势的成员。