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.

中文翻译：

---

在解决作者权纠纷方面，同行评审比仲裁的优势

最近的一篇评论文章主张通过仲裁解决学术研究中的作者权纠纷，解释说当前解决冲突的机制会导致结果不明确，而高级调查员拥有的机构权力可能会损害公平性。我们在这里辩称，仲裁不是解决学术界研究人员之间纠纷的合适方法，因为目前尚不清楚谁将承担仲裁费用，证据规则不适用于仲裁，而且判决具有约束力并且很难上诉。我们提倡使用基于同行的方法，而不是仲裁，而是由同行评审委员会和研究伦理咨询机构来帮助解决作者之间的分歧。我们描述了一个机构同行评审委员会的组成，以解决作者权纠纷。这两种机制都可以在学术机构内找到或形成，并为可能避开法律程序并趋向于由同行处理的研究人员提供了一些优势。基于对等的方法比仲裁要便宜，并且所涉及的专家都具有有关特定领域的学术出版和研究文化的知识。博学多才的中立专家的决定可以减少偏见，具有更大的权威，并可以提出上诉。不仅可以利用基于同级的方法来解决作者之间的分歧，而且还可以增强协作能力并促进健康的团队环境。在学术机构内部发挥作用，并为可能避开法律程序并偏向于同行处理的研究人员提供了一些优势。基于对等的方法比仲裁要便宜，并且所涉及的专家都具有有关特定领域的学术出版和研究文化的知识。博学多才的中立专家的决定可以减少偏见，具有更大的权威，并可以提出上诉。不仅可以利用基于同级的方法来解决作者之间的分歧，而且还可以增强协作能力并促进健康的团队环境。在学术机构内部发挥作用，并为可能避开法律程序并偏向于同行处理的研究人员提供了一些优势。基于对等的方法比仲裁要便宜，并且所涉及的专家都具有有关特定领域的学术出版和研究文化的知识。博学多才的中立专家的决定可以减少偏见，具有更大的权威，并可以提出上诉。不仅可以利用基于同级的方法来解决作者之间的分歧，而且还可以增强协作能力并促进健康的团队环境。博学多才的中立专家的决定可以减少偏见，具有更大的权威，并可以提出上诉。不仅可以利用基于同级的方法来解决作者之间的分歧，而且还可以增强协作能力并促进健康的团队环境。博学多才的中立专家的决定可以减少偏见，具有更大的权威，并可以提出上诉。不仅可以利用基于同级的方法来解决作者之间的分歧，而且还可以增强协作能力并促进健康的团队环境。