Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 2005 Sep;31(9):554–556. doi: 10.1136/jme.2004.010553

The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism

L Kwok 1
PMCID: PMC1734216  PMID: 16131560

Abstract

Junior researchers can be abused and bullied by unscrupulous senior collaborators. This article describes the profile of a type of serial abuser, the White Bull, who uses his academic seniority to distort authorship credit and who disguises his parasitism with carefully premeditated deception. Further research into the personality traits of such perpetrators is warranted.

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (56.4 KB).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Abbott Alison. Dispute over first authorship lands researchers in dock. Nature. 2002 Sep 5;419(6902):4–4. doi: 10.1038/419004b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbott Alison, Graf Phillip. Survey reveals mixed feelings over scientific misconduct. Nature. 2003 Jul 10;424(6945):117–117. doi: 10.1038/424117a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bennett Dianne M., Taylor David McD. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emerg Med (Fremantle) 2003 Jun;15(3):263–270. doi: 10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00432.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhandari Mohit, Einhorn Thomas A., Swiontkowski Marc F., Heckman James D. Who did what? (Mis)perceptions about authors' contributions to scientific articles based on order of authorship. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003 Aug;85-A(8):1605–1609. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhopal R., Rankin J., McColl E., Thomas L., Kaner E., Stacy R., Pearson P., Vernon B., Rodgers H. The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ. 1997 Apr 5;314(7086):1009–1012. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Breen K. J. Misconduct in medical research: whose responsibility? Intern Med J. 2003 Apr;33(4):186–191. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-5994.2003.00373.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Brumfiel Geoff. Misconduct in physics: time to wise up? Nature. 2002 Jul 11;418(6894):120–121. doi: 10.1038/418120a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Dalton Rex. Misconduct: the stars who fell to earth. Nature. 2002 Dec 19;420(6917):728–729. doi: 10.1038/420728a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Dennis Carina. Misconduct row fuels calls for reform. Nature. 2004 Feb 19;427(6976):666–666. doi: 10.1038/427666a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Drenth J. P. Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. JAMA. 1998 Jul 15;280(3):219–221. doi: 10.1001/jama.280.3.219. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Fenning T. M. Fraud offers big rewards for relatively little risk. Nature. 2004 Jan 29;427(6973):393–393. doi: 10.1038/427393a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Frazzetto Giovanni. Who did what? Uneasiness with the current authorship is prompting the scientific community to seek alternatives. EMBO Rep. 2004 May;5(5):446–448. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7400161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Geggie D. A survey of newly appointed consultants' attitudes towards research fraud. J Med Ethics. 2001 Oct;27(5):344–346. doi: 10.1136/jme.27.5.344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilbert F. J., Denison A. R. Research misconduct. Clin Radiol. 2003 Jul;58(7):499–504. doi: 10.1016/s0009-9260(03)00176-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. KLISIECKI A., WIKTOR Z., PYTASZ M., DEC L. [Alkalization, ammonia and urea in urine in kidney diseases]. Pol Tyg Lek. 1961 Dec 25;16:2001–2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. KLISIECKI A., WIKTOR Z., PYTASZ M., DEC L. [Alkalization, ammonia and urea in urine in kidney diseases]. Pol Tyg Lek. 1961 Dec 25;16:2001–2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. KLISIECKI A., WIKTOR Z., PYTASZ M., DEC L. [Alkalization, ammonia and urea in urine in kidney diseases]. Pol Tyg Lek. 1961 Dec 25;16:2001–2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Katsavdakis Kostas A., Gabbard Glen O., Athey George I., Jr Profiles of impaired health professionals. Bull Menninger Clin. 2004 Winter;68(1):60–72. doi: 10.1521/bumc.68.1.60.27732. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Kocsis Richard N. Criminal psychological profiling: validities and abilities. Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol. 2003 Apr;47(2):126–144. doi: 10.1177/0306624X03251092. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lawrence Peter A. Rank injustice. Nature. 2002 Feb 21;415(6874):835–836. doi: 10.1038/415835a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Lawrence Peter A. The politics of publication. Nature. 2003 Mar 20;422(6929):259–261. doi: 10.1038/422259a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Lynöe N., Jacobsson L., Lundgren E. Fraud, misconduct or normal science in medical research--an empirical study of demarcation. J Med Ethics. 1999 Dec;25(6):501–506. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.6.501. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Mainous Arch G., 3rd, Bowman Marjorie A., Zoller James S. The importance of interpersonal relationship factors in decisions regarding authorship. Fam Med. 2002 Jun;34(6):462–467. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Marco Catherine A., Schmidt Terri A. Who wrote this paper? Basics of authorship and ethical issues. Acad Emerg Med. 2004 Jan;11(1):76–77. doi: 10.1197/j.aem.2003.08.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. McCrory P. Fraud and misconduct in publication. Br J Sports Med. 2003 Apr;37(2):95–95. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.37.2.95. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Minkel J. R. Reality check. Alleged fraud gets physicists thinking about misconduct. Sci Am. 2002 Nov;287(5):20–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Mojon-Azzi Stefania M., Mojon Daniel S. Scientific misconduct: from salami slicing to data fabrication. Ophthalmologica. 2004 Jan-Feb;218(1):1–3. doi: 10.1159/000074559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Murray Cherry A., Das Saswato R. The price of scientific freedom. Nat Mater. 2003 Apr;2(4):204–205. doi: 10.1038/nmat873. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Onwude J. L., Staines A., Lilford R. J. Multiple author trend worst in medicine. BMJ. 1993 May 15;306(6888):1345–1345. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6888.1345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Der Weyden Martin B. Managing allegations of scientific misconduct and fraud: lessons from the "Hall affair". Med J Aust. 2004 Feb 16;180(4):149–151. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2004.tb05853.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Weeks William B., Wallace Amy E., Kimberly B. C. Surott. Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Nov;59(9):1949–1954. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.029. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Wendler David, Miller Franklin G. Deception in the pursuit of science. Arch Intern Med. 2004 Mar 22;164(6):597–600. doi: 10.1001/archinte.164.6.597. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Wilmshurst P. The code of silence. Lancet. 1997 Feb 22;349(9051):567–569. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)80121-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES