group members: Ethan Catania, Om Das, Daniel Quackenbush, and Komlavi Touglo

Authorship and intellectual property are two important considerations for academic researchers. Authorship is important for making sure that everyone who contributed to an academic work gets proper credit for the value they added. Researchers have to keep intellectual property in mind so that they respect the creations of others and are able to benefit from their own research as they wish.

Authorship and Guidelines

A recurring obstacle for most scientists revolves around the issues of authorship. Authorship was much simpler and was traceable to individuals and not to a plethora of people such as Einstein and his theory of special relativity or Newton and his theory of gravity, which all contributed to the field of physics. As science has become more complex with the rise in technology giving us the power to understand the unknown, the practice of joint-authored articles has become the norm in research. As a result of this practice issues of authorship have formed. For instance, in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993, there were reports of a publication of an article that amassed a total of 3000 authors which brought up several questions such as whether the authorship claimed was true.. Following this, (V. Ramana Feeser 2008) studies have shown that with the increase in authors on a single publication there’s been a trend where most authors don’t reach the appropriate criteria of holding authorship. This, therefore, dilutes the efforts of those who’ve contributed a substantial amount to the manuscript.

Furthermore, in this multi-authored practice, studies have shown students are more susceptible to exploitation when working on a project with faculty members proving to be unethical (Jason W. Osborne 2009). These recurring problems raised the question of whether authorship was given to those where it wasn’t due, which the question was held to be true. The second question being what should really be counted as authorship. In an attempt to face these issues several organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or the American Psychological Association came together to define what constitutes authorship and what guidelines should be put in place (Jason W. Osborne 2009). In this meeting, it was discovered that many of the scientists were unaware of these guidelines and so it was ensured that they went into great depth of forming these guidelines that would be applicable to all fields.  

As a result, nine central themes emerged (Jason W. Osborne 2009). 

1. Authorship and what constitutes authorship. 
2. What aspects shouldn’t be considered when it comes to authorship. 
3. Making sure that student’s rights regarding authorship are not overlooked but instead are taken seriously. 
4. Listing what should be acknowledged as significant contributions to the project compared to less impactful contributions.
5. Maintaining communication amongst colleagues should take place discussing the order of authorship. 
6. There should be editing to ensure avoiding plagiarism of any kind and making sure ethical responsibilities are taken care of. 
7. Upholding the responsibility of seniors to protect juniors from abuse regarding authorship within a team. 
8.  All co-authors shall review and approve the work that they were responsible for. 
9. The authorship order should be determined.

There still remains the problem of what constitutes a substantial contribution that implies ownership. To define ownership, one should contribute to at least one of these responsibilities in the project that was conducted (Jason W. Osburne 2009). First would be taking part in the project created. This entails that the scientist being the creator of the design formed each component of the project and would, therefore, have a firm understanding of the final product and what was trying to be achieved (Larry D. Claxton 2005).  The second role would entail the responsibility of processing and data collection (Jason W. Osburne 2009). This shows that they executed the design and obtained data that would be used in achieving their objective. The third is holding responsibility for data analysis and comprehension. This involves extensive research and comprehension of the data obtained and making it applicable to the project. Lastly is the responsibility of drafting the article and revising for crucial intellectual content as well contributing to large parts of the paper. (V. Ramana Feeser 2008). 

Once it’s clear of what constitutes authorship, decisions regarding the order of whom is listed shall be solely based upon the magnitude of what was contributed to the project. It should be kept in mind that student authorship is no trivial matter and that their labor should be respected and listed by them. According to G. Eysenbach, medical students observe that academic misconduct is common and that 16 of 51 students have witnessed their superiors claiming authorship although they had no direct involvement in the project (Larry D. Claxton 2005). In order to counteract this, most guidelines endorse the student to be regarded as the first author on publications from their dissertations as well placing emphasis that they are aware of their rights to their work. In closing, authorship, and inventorship play a main role in how scientists build their lives and reputations, and because of this, it’s crucial the guidelines listed above are followed in the scientific community.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) refers broadly to creations of the human mind; products like developed ideas or concepts (WIPO, 2016). Academics, both researchers and faculty, are concerned primarily with two types of IP: copyrightable works and patentable works (Dowling, 2003). Researchers must consider these in their work so that they respect the IP of others and maintain ownership of their own IP.

Copyright gives the original author(s) of a work the exclusive right to make and distribute copies of it—the right to copy it—for a limited time after its creation (Merriam-Webster). Academic works like papers; slideshows; course assignments and notes; and textbooks are all subject to copyright.
The researcher or professor who creates these materials would normally hold the copyright. However, some universities have policies that claim ownership of some or all of their paid professors’ work. While few universities attempt to enforce these policies in the first place, the law implies that they would often not be enforceable anyway (AAUP 1999). There are exceptions to this, where the university or a sponsor would have claim to the work(s). Researchers should review their institution’s policy and understand any documents they sign, especially those pertaining to specific projects or topics of research.

By getting a patent, a creator publicly discloses how to create an invention in exchange for the exclusive right within a specific country to make, use, or sell it for a limited time. While there are stringent restrictions on what is considered patentable, many methods developed by researchers may be eligible to be patented. Some possibilities include processes for manufacturing something; a molecule; a system to improve the performance of a computer network; a new variety of plant; or an improvement to a common process. Since a patent provides the exclusive right to profit from an invention, both the researchers and the institutions they work under have an interest in the patent of a work (Dowling, 2003).
Obtaining a patent is a long and complex process. First, the researcher must determine if their creation is patentable, and what type of patent they need: utility, design, or plant. Then, they submit their initial application. If the application is missing any parts, they will be notified and have to submit those extra parts within a certain time period. After that, the application is passed along to an examiner at the US Patent and Trademark Office. The application is rejected if the examiner has any concerns about whether the creation is eligible to be patented. The researcher has some time to respond to the rejection and address the examiner’s concerns. A patent application can be rejected multiple times; the researcher can choose to keep appealing the decision and addressing concerns, or they can abandon the application. If they succeed in arguing their case, the application will be approved (USPTO, 2020). The average length of a patent application is nearly three years, so it is best not to delay any longer than necessary (KeyIP.law, 2018).
All the parties involved in the creation’s development must be identified when the initial application is filed. Therefore, before starting the application, a researcher should understand and have confirmed which individuals or institutions believe themselves to have a claim to this invention.
Additionally, as part of the process, the patent office will investigate “prior art”: existing public information, and ensure that the proposed work is new and inventive. Researchers must be careful not to publish significant details of their invention, or use their invention in public, before applying for the patent (Mohan-Ram 2001), because their own publication can make their patent application be rejected for not being unique. If they wish to both patent and publish, the patent should come first so that their creation is unique at the time of application.

Intellectual property, both copyright, and patents, is a complex matter that researchers often interact with. Researchers should understand the IP policy of any institution they work with and how it interacts with them and their research. Their institutions may also have IP offices or departments that can explain the institution’s policy.

Technology and the TRIPS Agreement

In the 18th century, French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau claimed that people possess rights that they are inherently born with. Although very general, this would serve as much of the foundation for many future rights that are awarded to anyone. Within the US in 2007, a law was passed that everyone has the right to privacy, and this same law in Europe was passed 10 years later (Hazarika 2018). The right to publish and create is given to everyone and anyone who creates work is entitled to the protection of copyright and authorship laws. Before this implication, the stealing or plagiarism was commonplace. Without laws in place, it was very rare for people to be held accountable for claiming that work is theirs when it in fact comes from another person. With no rights to privacy, people had no problem invading the privacy of others to steal research or get an advantage over their competition. Nowadays stealing work is a serious claim but it is also much easier to accomplish. With new technology in place, people who create work often choose to gain legal protection through a patent.

According to the United States Patent and Trademark office, over the past 3 decades the annual patent application has grown from 112,379 to 520,277 which is an increase of 464%. (Shah 2013). The World Trade Organization (WTO), developed in 1994 as well, was intended to liberalize trade and create a framework for trade agreement negotiations as well as dispute negotiation between member nations. The TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) agreement caused the lower income countries to have similar intellectual property rights to more developed countries. The TRIPS agreement was also a required prerequisite for entry in the WTO, and as a result, lower income countries seeking the free trade advantage of the WTO had to go through rigorous intellectual property rights in their countries. A 1987 survey done by the United States International Trade Commission found that the US lost 50 billion dollars annually due to intellectual property rights. (Shah 2013). The TRIPS Agreement became responsible for developing countries to pass legislative reforms to align the protections received for copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc. Tying in Jean Jacques Rousseau and his ideals, “IPRs have been defended as being intrinsically valuable, thus invoking a natural right to property, and as being essential policy tools to promote innovation, which draws on utilitarian ethical principles,” (Shah 2013). Utilitarianism is the idea that actions are right if they benefit the vast majority. The idea of authorship and intellectual property was put in place because of its reliance on these ideals and the fact that having creative protection allows for much more advancement within society. Everyone is given these rights because everyone has the right to research and get protection on that research. Subsequently, everyone can build off of each other’s research allowing for a cohesive society rather than one that is more everyman for himself.  

These intrinsic rights are responsible for promoting innovation within the researching world. So how can technology change jumble these rules. For instance, technology makes copying and potentially stealing others work much easier. With the introduction of the World Wide Web and technology such as photocopiers, new laws had to be put in place to account for the much more difficult grasp on intellectual property. Any technological advances that enhance the possibility for reproduction of works, and places that capability in the hands of the public or a larger and different audience has the potential to impact all authors and content creators. Some major examples of technology that has changed the way we look at intellectual property and authorship are the printing press, copier, and the internet. All of these examples have caused a major disruption in the world of copyright. One of the most influential periods for copyright is the 1968 trial of Williams and Wilkins Co. V. United States. 

The controversy started with the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) when they were accused of copying articles from Williams and Wilkins Co. The implication was the NLM and NIH were causing a loss of revenue for Williams and Wilkins Co. and their defense was that the photocopying of articles fell within the fair use of the articles as they were a nonprofit. At first the disagreement went in favor of Williams and Wilkins Co. but after a year, the verdict was reversed. The reversal was due to the fact that not allowing the NLM and NIH to photocopy these documents was hurting and stalling scientific and medical research. The reason this trial was so controversial was due to the fact then there was no mention of a photocopier within the Copyright Act. Clearly, changes had to be made to stop cases like this from happening in the future. The act was rectified with four factors for fair use and copying of intellectual property. These new additions were the purpose and character of the use (whether commercial or non-profit), the nature of the copyrighted work (whether factual or non-factual), the amount of work copied with respect to the whole work, and the effect on the value of the copyrighted work. These new factors have helped to determine the correct verdict in trials since with extra weight given to the last criteria of the act. (Wirtén 2004).

A 1985 example of how technology can make the line of intellectual property blurry was the case of American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc. Six scientific and technical publishers sued Texaco for photocopying articles without paying license fees. This case also shows the implementation of the new copyright act as a result of the Williams and Wilkins Co. V. United States case. Dr. Donald Chickering was mainly in the crosshairs because he had directly copied 4 articles from the Journal Of Catalysis. The case ended with Texaco winning because of the new laws in place, and the jury found that Chickering had violated 2 of the four criteria as he copied entire works and Texaco had lost money as a result of the copying. (Wirtén 2004).

Intellectual Property Protection in Emerging Economies

The rationale for promoting intellectual property while on the face is based on sound economic logic but the challenge is its universal acceptance. It has been observed that the economic priorities of developed countries having strong free-market structures are at divergence with the objective of emerging or developing countries, where the fruits of free-market are yet to reach the common masses. In this context, it is interesting to have a closer look at the relevance of protection and promotion of Intellectual property from the perspective of the emerging countries.

There are two main objectives of intellectual property protection. The first one being supporting investments in knowledge formation and business inventions by developing exclusive rights to utilize and sell newly created innovations, products, and services. Without this protection, competitors could use this knowledge to their benefit to cut costs on R&D and other business actions. The second objective is to spur extensive sharing of new technologies by encouraging intellectual creators to put their knowledge and innovations on the market.

Further, more specifically for emerging economies, intellectual property protection has many positive impacts. Some of them are:-

• It fuels positive economic growth. Access to new innovations by countries with less technological advances improves their rate of return on investment due to increased productivity. Stronger IP protection also incentivizes enterprises to enter a certain market sector as they could have security for their goods and services. Further, IP protection also decreases the transaction cost as countries can copy foreign goods and costs due to increased distribution of knowledge.
• It encourages a culture of innovation.  IPs like patents are issued and published which allows other enterprises to use that knowledge to make improvements which could lead to more innovation.
• It supports innovation. Emerging economies with weak IP protection may not be up to date with new technologies that are being used by developed countries. This results in countries having to use their own resources for innovation which is not viable. Having stronger IP protection will allow the transfer of knowledge through trade flows, foreign direct investment, and licensing. Each of these will give rise to an increase in innovation.
• Promotes R&D- Enterprises in emerging economies lean towards R&D for goods and services that have high international demand as they can rely on IP protection to protect them.
• Gives rise to new enterprises which in turn gives rise to new jobs.
• Gives consumers a wider variety of choices of goods/services.

On the other, knowledge can be categorized as a public good. A public good can be defined as a commodity or service that is provided without profit to all members of society, either by the government or by a private individual or organization (Oxford dictionary). This implies that knowledge should be available to anyone regardless of the cost to the innovator.

The opportunity cost of the first objective is the second one and vice versa. Having high intellectual property protection may reduce social benefits from innovation as knowledge is not shared. On the other hand, lowering intellectual property protection will disincentivize innovation as the return on investment is lower than expected. It is important to find a balance between strong and weak intellectual property protection that encourages economic growth. 

Emerging economies also demonstrate certain typical attributes, which to an extent result in the benefits of IP protection getting distorted. Some of them are as under:

1. Emerging economies have many people working in the informal sector. As the government strengthens the protection, people working in the informal sector will have to find new jobs. This increases the number of unemployed people in an economy having a negative impact on economic growth. An example of this can be seen in Lebanon. The government improved intellectual property protection to reduce piracy. This put 717 people out of work and could only create jobs for 291 people (Maskus 1997).
2. In a perfect market scenario, everyone has equal market power, no barriers to entry, and no disparity of knowledge of the production of the good/ service. When intellectual property protection is introduced to market sectors like chemical, agriculture, and biotechnology this gives the firms higher market power where they can influence the price. These firms would reduce sales to create monopolistic prices. According to Lanjouw patents create significantly greater prices for patented drugs than for generic drugs. In the case of emerging markets, there are very few market players in most of the sectors and hence the uneven market power creates monopolies that affect the consumer interest at large.
3. Intellectual property protection could lead to disparity in technological knowledge. For example, firms that have drug patents will increase copying costs for copying enterprises in emerging economies. IP protection may lead to higher costs for domestic firms as profits are transferred to International enterprises that supplied the know-how to produce the goods or services.
4. One of the strongest arguments against IP protection can be brought forward by looking at the administration and enforcement of them. Emerging countries generally have a weaker legal framework which would make it difficult to restrict breaches to the protection given by the government.

For the development of any nation, growth is inevitable. To institutionalize growth, innovation and continuous improvement in goods and services produced by any nation have to be sustained. Though there is no ambiguity whatsoever in the basic incentive framework structure being envisaged in the protection of IP framework, it is only the degree of effectiveness in specific underdeveloped market structure that is under scrutiny.

 Conclusion

Authorship and IP are complex matters that cannot be fully covered in a single webpage, but they are important. Researchers need to keep them in mind as they perform and publish their work. With the introduction of authorship and intellectual property into the modern world, research and scientific advancement have been at an all-time high. Although often difficult to achieve, the complete protection of ideas and intellectual property is a worthwhile battle. Whether it be through a patent, copyright,  or alternative means, writers being able to protect themselves makes the scientific community a safer and more comfortable place to achieve breakthroughs. Without the implementation of intellectual property rights, much of the research we have today may not be reliable and would progress at a much slower rate. Authorship allows for the clear distinction between work owned by an author and work contributed to by an author.  Their institutions should have clear guidelines for authorship that are understood by all of their staff. Researchers should also know how laws on intellectual property apply to their work and ensure that they are respecting the ownership of others and that their own property rights are being respected.

Works Cited

American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1999. “Statement on Copyright.” June. Accessed April 21, 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20210416083601/https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-copyright.

Buccafusco, Christopher. “A THEORY OF COPYRIGHT AUTHORSHIP.” Virginia Law Review 102, no. 5 (2016): 1229-295. Accessed April 29, 2021. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43923336.

Hemmungs Wirtén, Eva. 2004. No Trespassing : Authorship, Intellectual Property Rights, and the Boundaries of Globalization. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Accessed April 29, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezpxy-web-p-u01.wpi.edu/lib/wpi/detail.action?docID=4670092.

Hazarika, Bidyut & Gerlach, James & Cunningham, Lawrence. (2018). The Role of Service Recovery in Online Privacy Violation. International Journal of e-Business Research. 1-27. 10.4018/IJEBR.201810010

Merriam-Webster Dictionary. 2021. Copyright. Accessed April 22, 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20210414041817/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/copyright.

Mohan-Ram, Vid. 2001. “Patent First, Publish Later.” Science Magazine. October 26. Accessed April 23, 2021. https://web.archive.org/web/20210421085815/https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2001/10/patent-first-publish-later-how-not-ruin-your-chances-winning-patent.

Richardson, M. (2017). Authorship, Secrecy, Privacy. In The Right to Privacy: Origins and Influence of a Nineteenth-Century Idea (Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law, pp. 1-13). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108303972.003

Reyman, Jessica. 2009. The Rhetoric of Intellectual Property : Copyright Law and the Regulation of Digital Culture. Florence: Taylor & Francis Group. Accessed April 29, 2021. ProQuest Ebook Central. https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezpxy-web-p-u01.wpi.edu/lib/wpi/detail.action?docID=5422870

Shah, Aakash Kaushik, Jonathan Warsh, and Aaron S. Kesselheim. “The ethics of intellectual property rights in an era of globalization.” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41, no. 4 (2013): 841+. Gale Academic OneFile (accessed April 29, 2021). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A358056846/AONE?u=mlin_c_worpoly&sid=AONE&xid=2717adc2. 

World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). 2016. “Introduction.” In Understanding Industrial Property, 5. Geneva.

CLAXTON, L. (2005). Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research. Reviews in Mutation Research,  589(1), 31–45.

Jason W. Osborne, & Abigail Holland. (2009). “What is Authorship, and What Should it Be? A Survey of Prominent Guidelines for Determining Authorship in Scientific Publications.” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14(15), 1–19.

“Patent Process Overview.” United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) – An Agency of the Department of Commerce, May 15, 2020. https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/patent-process-overview.

“How Long Does the Patent Examination Process Take?” KeyIP.law, August 30, 2018. https://www.keyip.law/key-ip-primers/long-patent-examination-process-take/.

Alfarraj, Abdalaziz. “Intellectual Property Protection in Emerging Economies and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2878138.