Back to Chapter Back to Chapter

Case 2i :

Falsification—Casper the Friendly Ghost/Co-Author

Ta'a stammered,

"No one is going to believe that this research was done by just a couple of graduate students. We need some 'muscle' in the authors for this piece".

Aisha retorted defensively, putting down her tea cup for emphasis,

"And why do we need 'muscle'? Do you think we're not good enough to publish in academic journals yet? Do we need some ghost writer to prove something? We worked really hard on this piece and there's nothing to say that we shouldn't publish on our own".

Ta'a came back boldly, narrowing his eyes and standing up straighter,

"Aisha, don't be ignorant. Journals know who you are and they'll just desk reject us if they think we're two graduate students from a developing country. If we don't get a senior scholar, preferably one who works in the US or the UK or AUS or Canada, they'll never take us seriously".

Aisha rose from her seat, adjusted her head scarf, glared at Ta'a, and left him with the following words as she strode out of the computer lab,

"Ta'a, you're a fool. I will not accept my name on a paper with people who don't even know who we are. If you send that out, either I am on it, or your precious senior scholars are. But, I'm the one that did the work, so if you send it out without me, I will report you to the Dean".

A few days later, Ta'a submitted the piece, placing his name first, Aisha's second, and the names of two professors at University of California, San Diego, who had given favorable comments on their paper at the latest meeting of the American Economics Association, third and fourth.

Ten weeks later, Ta'a rolled out of bed and checked his email as he did every morning. This morning there was a notice from Review of International Economics stating that their paper had been given a revise and resubmit, but the editor had some questions of the authors. Specifically, the editor asked for one of the senior scholars that Ta'a had added to include some mention of how these findings contradicted a piece that was submitted only two weeks before Ta'a had submitted the paper.

The editor asked,

"Eddie, it seems strange that your findings on the role of the IASB in this paper are so contradictory to your findings in the paper we accepted from you last week. Is this paper based upon a different data set? It would make the paper stronger if you could mention how these two pieces answer one another".

Ta'a's blood ran cold,

"Busted".

After a few sleepless nights wondering what to do with this problem, Ta'a came to Aisha's cubicle and asked her if she wanted to get a cup of tea.

Ta'a started uncomfortably,

"Aisha, I might be in trouble. You know that paper we wrote? Well, I inserted your name as the second author and the names of the two professors from San Diego. Do you remember them? Well, the editor has given me the following revise and resubmit request and I do not know what to do with it".

Aisha's eyes narrowed and her jaw set… Ta'a could tell he was about to get an earful.

• Is this a case of authorship dispute?
• Is this a case of fabrication?
• How might you differentiate the two?
   

Imagine you are Ta'a:

• How do you explain what you did to Aisha?
• What will you do with the revise and resubmit invitation?
• How might this effect your academic career?

 

Imagine you are Aisha:

• What do you say to Ta'a?
• If you make good on your previous threat to report Ta'a to the Dean, what do you tell the Dean?
• How might this effect your academic career?