Name: Nikola Micic

Department for Plant and Environmental Sciences, Plant Metabolic Plasticity group
Supervisor: Nanna Bjarnholt

Process of conjugation (joining) different compounds in organisms is common and widely

distributed among different species of plants. Generated conjugates can have different structures, roles,
and activities, depending on their origin and “situation” in which they occur. Enzyme-dependent
synthesis of these conjugates is related to development of plant, its exposure to stress, toxins, or
predators [1]. In my Ph.D. project, I will be dealing with determination of structure of specific
glutathione conjugates and their localization, in function of determining enzymes (glutathione
transferases-GSTs) metabolic pathway in which they are included. Glutathione, as first part of the
conjugate is a small, linear, three peptide molecule made of amino acids glycine, cysteine and γ-
glutamic acid [2]. Although the structure of glutathione is well known, finding structure of the
conjugate in whole possesses a challenge due to ability of glutathione to bind different types of
compounds. In vivo formation of conjugates is catalyzed by the activity of vast number of GSTs whose
expression is substrate-specific and related to certain metabolic pathways. In order to find exact
structure of glutathione conjugate and relate this conjugate to a specific GST and metabolic pathway,
different experimental approaches will be used. Application of up-to-date liquid chromatography
techniques will enable determination of exact structure of the conjugate, which will then be isolated
and purified in order to test specificity of chosen GSTs toward these conjugates as substrates. By
finding exact pairs of enzyme-substrate, it will be possible to create complete metabolic pathway with
the exactly determined functions of the candidate GSTs.
With the development of technology, the process of scientific research has become
significantly intensified, with the international research groups, projects and highly specified
publications more common than in the past [3]. Chance to engage in world-wide co-operations has set
up the pace for modern-day scientists what is best presented in the “publish or perish” mantra that
describes the urge to publish as much and fast as they can. However, all of this progress and benefits
do not come without the price. This price is manifested in the form of a problem in scientific
community that has now reached global proportions and is known as undeserved authorship [4a].
The problem of authorship, among others, such as fabrication of results or conflicts of interests, is long
present among scientists. The first attempt of solving this problem was made in 1978 in Vancouver.
Group of influential editors of medical journals known as International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors (ICMJE) has made set of recommendations known as “Vancouver Recommendations” that are
used to determine if one should be granted authorship. According to these recommendations,
authorship should be granted only to individuals who fulfilled four clearly defined criteria of
authorship. In order for one to be called co-author of certain publication, he/she must show a significant
dose of creativity and ingenuity, together with readiness to participate in different aspects of work such
as writing, discussing and suggesting changes in methodology of work. Besides being included in
experimental and writing procedure, it is necessary for one to be familiar with the work of others and
to take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of every aspect of work [4b]. According to
Vancouver Recommendations: “Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social and
financial implications. Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work”
[5]. It is easy to see how all the benefits of authorship can be appealing to one while trying to evade
responsibility and accountability for the published work at the same time. Although different types of
undeserved authorship exist, I would like to focus on one that I believe is especially interesting to
young scientists – gift authorship. This form of this undeserved authorship can be defined as a
phenomenon of entitling someone as a co-author although that person did not contribute to the work.
In certain cases, the contribution made by “gift authors” is equal to the contributors’, but in some
cases there is no contribution what so ever. Researchers included in this type of ill practice can be
placed in two groups. The first group is presented by senior researchers, supervisors, and chairs who
believe that they should be acknowledged because of their ranks or non-scientific contribution such as
providing the funds and general supervision of the group [4c, 6]. The second group of scientists
susceptible to this practice are young researchers at the start of their scientific career to whom
authorship is gifted in order to boost their profile. The same reason can be found in case of senior
scientists, together with assigning authorship as a token of friendship or in the hope of returning the
favor in future [3]. Although tempting and on the first look fruitful and helpful to others, gift authorship
presents ill practice, harmful in many aspects. As an argument “for” gift authorship, certain authors
state that this is a “matter of collegiate agreement between contributors and journal editors should not
be concerned” [6]. Negative sides of this are multiple and concern individual, its institution and the
whole scientific community. This fake building of scientific competence is a form of
“unsportsmanlike” competition which results in getting research grants, occupation of academic posts
and what is maybe most dangerous, general recognition of the individual as an outstanding expert in
its field of work [3]. By this way, short term gain for an unethical individual is a long term loss for the
whole scientific community, institution on which he/she works and the general public which gradually
loses trust in science due to unreliability and lying of the persons who should act as role models [4d].
During my Ph.D. project, collaborations with partners from abroad are planned in order
to gain additional knowledge and skills in my field of work. As a possible situation that could arise
during this collaboration is the one in which professor from abroad wants to put his younger colleague
as a co-author of the paper which contains result obtain while working in their laboratory. The problem
is that the experiment and writing are done, paper is about to be submitted, and the young colleague
has not attributed at all to this work. By common sense (and Vancouver Recommendations) this person
should not be listed as a co-author. Since I am the first author, professor contacts me directly and
requests from me to add his colleague on the paper. In situation like this it is necessary to act cautiously,
having in mind nature of the person and hierarchy. The moral obligation does not allow me to put this
researcher as a co-author, so the first thing I would do is to inform my mentor about the problem and
my point of view. I believe that my mentor would support me in my decision to notify the professor
about the possible consequences of adding undeserved coauthor. In this case, I would emphasize to
the professor abroad about the possible rise of dissatisfaction among the other members of the team
and the co-authors, due to this undeserved “prize” in the form of the authorship. In the long term, this
could result in the bad relationships between the groups which can seriously affect future co-operation.
However, I would leave a possibility for that researcher to become a co-author if he would actively
engage in design of the paper (by proposing additional experiments which could make this paper more
valuable after the review), and in the critical review of the writing process, together with accepting the
responsibility for the work done. By doing this, injustice of undeserved authorship would be prevented,
while the relations among the researchers would remain at a high level. If the professor abroad decides
to refuse my proposal, I would include my mentor in correspondence hoping that her authority would
be enough to persuade him in making right decision. As “the last resort,” if the problem could not be
solved inside the group that worked on this paper, I would look for the help of Named Person at my
Faculty.
References:

1. Gullner, G., Komives, T., Király, L. and Schröder, P. (2018). Glutathione S-transferase
enzymes in plant-pathogen interactions. Frontiers in Plant Science, 871(December), pp 1–19.

2. Dixon, D. P. and Edwards, R. (2010). Glutathione transferases. The Arabidopsis book, 8, e0131.

3. Gasparyan, A. Y., Ayvazyan, L. and Kitas, G. D. (2013). Authorship problems in scholarly

journals: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatology International,
33(2), pp 277–284. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2

4a. Gjerris, M., & Jensen, K. K. (2018). Authorship and other publication issues In Jensen, K. K.,
Whiteley, L., & Sandøe, P. (Eds.), RCR - A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct
of Research (pp 39), Copenhagen, DK: University of Copenhagen.

4b. Gjerris, M., & Jensen, K. K. (2018). Authorship and other publication issues In Jensen, K. K.,
Whiteley, L., & Sandøe, P. (Eds.), RCR - A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct
of Research (pp 39-42), Copenhagen, DK: University of Copenhagen.

4c. Gjerris, M., & Jensen, K. K. (2018). Authorship and other publication issues In Jensen, K. K.,
Whiteley, L., & Sandøe, P. (Eds.), RCR - A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct
of Research (pp 44), Copenhagen, DK: University of Copenhagen.

4d. Gjerris, M., & Jensen, K. K. (2018). Authorship and other publication issues In Jensen, K. K.,
Whiteley, L., & Sandøe, P. (Eds.), RCR - A Danish textbook for courses in Responsible Conduct
of Research (pp 46), Copenhagen, DK: University of Copenhagen.

5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (2018). Recommendations for the
Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. Retrieved
from http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf

6. Hong, S. T. (2017). Avoiding inappropriate authorship. Journal of Korean Medical Science,

32(6), 1046–1047. http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.6.1046