Recently, I was working on a paper where we all made mistakes regarding authorship. We withdraw the paper in question before publication, and we have all been writing new guidelines for our labs in order to prevent similar mistakes in the future.

Our new guidelines require that active authors on a paper ensure that everyone who has touched any of the data or intellectual contributions on the paper read and respond to the email message below. Responses are then stored on the authors’ computers to document who does and does not wish to be an author.

(We will have later blog post on authorship order – those policies are currently being rewritten.)

Progress on the paper does not occur until all are in agreement on authorship AND authorship order:

Dear {name}, potential author on {article/project}

A paper on the above topic is currently in preparation. You are receiving this email because you may have had some contact with some aspect of this project.

According to what is sometimes called the Vancouver Convention, there are four key components to justify authorship on a given poster, proceedings paper, journal article, or project:

1)         Substantial contributions* to the conception or design of the work, or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 

2)         Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 

3)         Final approval of the version to be published; AND 

4)         Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. 

*we consider the term “substantial contributions” here to be equivalent to “substantive intellectual contributions” as described in the Vancouver Convention protocols as well as to “substantial professional contributions” as described in section 8.12 of the “Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct” of the American Psychological Association: https://www.apa.org/ethics/code.

Details on the Vancouver Convention protocols can be found in this website of the international committee of medical journal editors: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors.  Those who meet some but not all four criteria should be acknowledged.

In view of the above considerations, we are asking you as an individual for a statement of your contributions relative to the four points above.

Referring to the above points, please answer the following questions regarding your own contributions:

1)         Do you consider your contributions to satisfy the requirement of “substantial contributions” as described above? If so, please describe your contributions here:

2)         Have you or will you contribute to drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content (yes or no)? If so, please describe:

3)         Have you or will you commit to providing final approval of the version to be published? (Yes or No): 

4)         Do you agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved (Yes or No)?: 

Today, Marta Szreder (first author) and I published an article on Phonological conditioning of affricate variability in Emirati Arabic. The article studies the [k∼tʃ] and [dʒ∼j] alternations in Emirati Arabic. In the article, we show that coronal obstruents [t,d] and coronal postalveolar fricatives [ʃ] inhibit production of the fricative variant of [dʒ] in the [dʒ∼j] alternation, but not the fricative variant of [k] in the [k∼tʃ] alternation, as seen in Figure 5 from the paper (below). The results suggest the [k∼tʃ] alternation is a completed phonemic change, while the [dʒ∼j] alternation is a an ongoing process.

The full abstract is quoted below:

This study investigates the conditioning effects of neighbouring consonants on the realisation of the phonemes /k/ and /dʒ/ in Emirati Arabic (EA), which are optionally realised as [tʃ] and [j], respectively. Based on previous accounts of EA and other Gulf Arabic (GA) dialects, we set out to test the prediction that proximity of other, phonetically similar coronal (COR) obstruents [COR, −son, −cont] and coronal postalveolar fricatives [COR, −ant] inhibit the surface realisation of the affricate variants of these phonemes. We examine elicitation data from twenty young female native speakers of EA, using stimuli with the target segment in the presence of a similar neighbour, as compared to words with the neighbour at a longer distance or with another coronal consonant. The results point to an asymmetry in the behaviour of the voiced and voiceless targets, such that the predicted inhibitory effect is confirmed for the voiced, but not the voiceless target. We argue that this finding, coupled with a consideration of the intra-participant and lexical trends in the data, is compatible with an approach that treats the two processes as being at different stages of development, where the [k∼tʃ] alternation is a completed phonemic change, while the [dʒ∼j] alternation is a synchronic phonological process.

Szreder, Marta & Derrick, Donald (2023) Phonological conditioning of affricate variability in Emirati Arabic, Journal of the International Phonetic Association. 1-19.