I find the ghost authorship claim very interesting. To me ghost authorship implies that the ghost author actively wrote pieces of the current text, not that the stated authors re-used prior text to which the purported ghost author had contributed. Although obviously there is a clear intellectual relationship between the pieces, the intentionality and action by the ghost author seem distinct, since in the former case author did not actually put pen to paper. Does the ethical framework you use in this piece distinguish between active and passive authorship?
There is no dispute that Burger co-authored the text that appears in the FJC. Had he complained that they republished his co-authored text, that would make this a somewhat different situation. He has not. Instead, Wentz claims that Burger did not contribute to the portions of the Burger et al paper that are reproduced in the FJC chapter. Burger et al. does not make such a claim about contributions and it is all a bit silly. This is not a complicated situation. 👍
Your piece made me more interested in the concept of ghost authorship, which is something I had not heard of in science writing before. For example, if you are writing a review paper, and you repurpose text from a previous original paper that you wrote with co-authors, do all of those co-authors then warrant authorship credits in the review paper?
PS. I understand the specifics of the situation are different, especially given that Burger also reviewed the FJC text. I’m more interested in the broader concept of ghost authorship.
Looking forward to watching this interview. It is definitely a change point for science in the US. Lots of major issues and disruptive technologies. We need good leadership in these times!!
Very good. Thanks.
I documented some of the problems with the chapter here:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/who-actually-wrote-the-climate-manual
I find the ghost authorship claim very interesting. To me ghost authorship implies that the ghost author actively wrote pieces of the current text, not that the stated authors re-used prior text to which the purported ghost author had contributed. Although obviously there is a clear intellectual relationship between the pieces, the intentionality and action by the ghost author seem distinct, since in the former case author did not actually put pen to paper. Does the ethical framework you use in this piece distinguish between active and passive authorship?
There is no dispute that Burger co-authored the text that appears in the FJC. Had he complained that they republished his co-authored text, that would make this a somewhat different situation. He has not. Instead, Wentz claims that Burger did not contribute to the portions of the Burger et al paper that are reproduced in the FJC chapter. Burger et al. does not make such a claim about contributions and it is all a bit silly. This is not a complicated situation. 👍
I see- I agree, that seems silly/strange.
Your piece made me more interested in the concept of ghost authorship, which is something I had not heard of in science writing before. For example, if you are writing a review paper, and you repurpose text from a previous original paper that you wrote with co-authors, do all of those co-authors then warrant authorship credits in the review paper?
PS. I understand the specifics of the situation are different, especially given that Burger also reviewed the FJC text. I’m more interested in the broader concept of ghost authorship.
Looking forward to watching this interview. It is definitely a change point for science in the US. Lots of major issues and disruptive technologies. We need good leadership in these times!!