Week 8 Discussion HMGT 400
- Specific Rules for Discussions
1.Each post must be at least 130 words long or it receives no credit. Only the first initial postings
and the first response postings meeting the 130-word requirement will be graded.
2.The initial posting must be submitted by Thursday night at 11:59 pm EST. The response’s
postings are due Sunday night at 11:59 pm.
- First Initial & response’s postings must include at least two references – one internal (course readings, course modules, primers,
webliography, etc.) and one external (other authoritative sources beyond our course material)
Note: No wiki or blog references
Bottom of Form
Starts Oct 8, 2016 11:59 PMEnds Oct 30, 2016 11:59 PM
Case Study-2, Challenging questions
Dr Jones and Dr Smith are researchers based in the same department at a UK university. They have been working on a joint research project for several years, publishing a number of articles on their work in peer reviewed journals. The two researchers are now producing a book about their research. The research was conducted under the auspices of their university.
The final manuscript was submitted to the publishers a while ago and Dr Jones contacts the firm for an update. He is surprised and very upset when the publishers tell him that the book is to be published with Dr Smith as the sole author. Dr Jones is informed that his role in both the research and the book itself will be acknowledged in the list of contributors to the project, nothing more. The publishers’ decision is based on information supplied by Dr Smith.
As far as Dr Jones is concerned, he wrote the book with Dr Smith and should also be credited as an author of the work. Indeed, he is convinced that he and Dr Smith had previously agreed that the book was a joint work and that they would each receive co-authorship. He does not remember having any written record of this agreement or of any discussions regarding authorship.
Dr Jones speaks to Dr Smith in an attempt to reach some sort of agreement on the matter but the position remains unchanged. He then tries speaking to the publishers of the book. They say that they have received reassurances from Dr Smith which they accept and they have no plans to change the attribution of authorship.
Prior to this dispute, Dr Jones believed that he had a good working relationship with Dr Smith. As well as wanting to resolve the issue of authorship, he is also concerned how his career may be affected by the dispute with Dr Smith.
Please pick up two questions and submit your response
– What could Dr Jones do?
– What ‘evidence’ or other information might shed some light on the matter?
– How might the situation be resolved?
– Could anything have been done to prevent this situation from occurring in the first place?