The following guest post by Maria Toft, former PhD fellow in Political Science at University of Copenhagen, describes her campaign against authorship theft in academia. This Denmark-wide action #PleaseDontStealMyWork collected 120 testimonies from victims of plagiarism and bullying, usually students and other junior researchers. Toft herself and her campaign were already portrayed in Swedish media (e.g., in Uniavisen). Here on For Better Science, she also talks about her own personal experience with running a protest campaign for more ethics in acaademia.

The guest post is accompanied by some relevant articles on For Better Science on the topic of authorship misconduct.

---

Let’s talk about the trauma of academia, baby.

By Maria Toft

In the spring of 2022, the campaign #pleasedontstealmywork washed over Danish universities and in a week the campaign collected 120 testimonies of research theft and abuse of hierarchical power within Danish academia. That’s may seem a small number for larger nations, but for Denmark – this number was significant. The testimonies were predominantly from junior scientists reporting about the misconduct and abuse of power by more senior research colleagues. PhD students wrote about their experiences with colleagues taking the credit for their work or ideas, and about how the management had handled these cases – or rather mishandled the cases of power abuse. 

The campaign uncovered some of the worst bedsores of science today and made it possible to start an honest conversation about these phenomena which are still largely surrounded by a code of silence due to a culture of fear amongst academics. The most worrying part was that the testimonies didn’t just report misconduct related to research integrity but also about narcissistic behaviours such as racism, sexism and pure bullying, deployed when powerful scientists or managers were being challenged on their excessive behaviours.  

The #pleasedontstealmywork collected 120 testimonies of research theft across disciplines in all universities in Denmark, in only one week. The campaign was not a representative study and didn’t describe the extent of the problem, but perhaps only the tip of the iceberg. Other recent studies with participants from five European countries have shown that around one third of the PhD students gave unmerited co-authorship to more senior colleagues because of hierarchical pressure or simply that ‘the person in power told them to’. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties (Goddiksen et al 2023). Another study from the Nordic countries showed that female young scholars were more likely to be exposed to these types of power abuses than their male counterparts (Helgesson et al 2022). 

The testimonies can be categorised into three different types of research theft:

1. The majority of the testimonies are cases concerning so-called ‘guest authorships’, where typically a senior researcher or even family members are assigned an unmerited co-authorship on an article without any participation whatsoever in the development of the idea or even in the reading of the article. The widespread use of unmerited co-authorships on articles suggests that co-authorships are used as a form of trade currency that can advance the careers of senior researchers in particular. 
2. There are also several cases involving rewriting of student assignments or the work of lab members into research papers or patents without any credit whatsoever to the original contributors.
3. Finally, there is also ‘good old-fashioned’ theft, where, for example, an idea or a project has been rejected by a reviewer, after which the reviewer himself or an acquaintance of the reviewer receives funds for a completely identical project.

The campaign spurred a national debate in Denmark about the conditions of conducting research, academic freedom and the potential that is being lost under the current research regime. This led to a more general debate amongst academics in Denmark and in the early summer of 2022, more than 2000 scientists signed (in just a week) an open letter to the political parties and to the Minister of research and education in Denmark, titled “Set Research Free”. The campaign #setresearchfree managed to gain the attention of the politicians and opened a discussion about the broader conditions of academia. For the first time in decades, the politicians started to listen to the scientists’ concerns with empathy. 

I, who am now a former PhD fellow with the Political Science department of the University of Copenhagen, initiated the campaign #pleasedontstealmywork together with the PhD Association Network of Denmark (PAND). Later, I teamed up with some of the most respected professors in Denmark and wrote the open letter #setresearchfree. The activism resulted in many positive changes and started to open up an otherwise locked policy domain dominated by academic power elites and deaf and indifferent politicians. However, for me personally the activism resulted in many months of threats and sexism from my management, and I was forced to resign from my position in the end. I knew that this would be the outcome of my decision to speak up, because I grew up with and even married (and lately divorced) one of the personality types that many managers tend to embody. Being a newly divorced single parent and someone who had broken many glass ceilings to merely obtain the opportunity to pursue a PhD, the decision to start a national campaign was truly a tough decision to make. However, my private life had unfolded in such a way that I had literally faced death three times in the year of 2021. These experiences had truly opened my eyes towards the fragility of life and what it means to be alive and not just to survive. Additionally, my theoretical view is that human beings are born highly empathic, capable of ‘getting over themselves’ and to act in a self-transcendent manner. So, my act of ‘speaking up’ itself can be seen as an unusual form of fieldwork to prove my thesis. Unfortunately, it seems much of our political and economic systems are based on the opposite notion – that the nature of human beings is first and foremost self-directed and driven by fear. This becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Here, I tend to agree with George Monbiot that society is composed of altruists governed by psychopaths. That’s a harsh analysis, I know. But with many people, I think it resonates rather well with – and resonance should never be dismissed. However, within academia I am not alone with this feeling and lately several researchers have started to speak up for example through the Academic Parity Movement or through studies that uncover the widespread power abuse. On the other side of the globe, a study from Australia reported in The Sydney Morning Herald that almost half of Australia’s young scientists have been harassed or bullied at work. The article cites a couple of the respondents “Academia rewards academics who abuse, steal, falsify and destroy others to claim their fame,” or “It is sad that narcissistic/psychopathic personalities get an edge.” (Christian et al. 2022)

Academia doesn’t differ from other systems in that sense. In fact, my suspicion is that academia is much more haunted by power abuse and structures of fear than most other systems. This is possible firstly because science is to many people a closed-off world, difficult to truly comprehend for people on the outside – also for politicians and civil servants in the ministries working with the governance of science. Therefore, there is no real understanding of the invisible norms and structures within academia. Secondly, academia is associated with status and prestige. This feature often attracts a certain kind of people concerned about these things. Thirdly, academia is highly hierarchical and internal structures, which lack checks and balances, favour the abuse of people at the bottom of the hierarchy. I could list several more factors that act as fuel to the flames as for example the “publish or perish” culture, the funding structures of research and so on. All these conditions put a pressure on otherwise morally functioning human beings and suddenly “research theft” and power abuse become part of the invisible academic culture. All these conditions create a negative spiral of fear and operate against the more fragile hearts but smart minds.

Therefore, we must talk about the trauma of academia, baby. Even if it hurts and even if it sticks the knife into the rigid power hierarchies. Because research theft is not just a problem for researchers, but also a problem of society. 

Most importantly, the truth is that we are in a time where we need good ideas more than ever: We are currently experiencing an unfolding climate change disaster and the 6^th mass extinction of species on Earth. The Secretary General of the UN António Guterres recently described our path as a ‘collective suicide’. Furthermore, we have a war in Europe and a fragile economic system based on a sky-high debt.  

Thus, we must ask ourselves: can ideas really thrive in a system characterised by mistrust, fear and competition? I think most of you will know the answer.

My colleagues in the UK asked me to write this article and report about the experiences from Danish academia which does not end at my own small country’s national borders. Power abuse and research theft within academia are indeed international problems and I think even more so in the UK, due to hundreds of years of elitism and a more conservative culture than the Danish egalitarian one. Therefore, we are obligated to work together across disciplines and across countries to uncover these misstates in order to talk about them openly and transform academia in a more empathic, trustful and creative direction. Therefore I call upon the courage of particularly young scientists around the world to gather up in a movement to firstly uncover the misstates of academia and secondly to start a conversation on how to operationalise a new transparent, compassionate and creative research environment. The PhD Association Network of Denmark (PAND) is ready to chat and offer their support. 

I am hopeful in this endeavour even though the above description might give a bleak impression of the state of science. I sincerely believe that the vast majority of scientists are compassionate by heart. Most scientists start out as idealists almost by definition because they are driven by their ideas and sparks of insight. Ideas that they hope will make a difference and will move society which they themselves are members of in a more positive direction. Those are the people driven by intrinsic values and the wonderful experience of discoveries and ideas coming from nowhere and everywhere. Yet it is a minority of powerful people who protect themselves with layers of fear who are truly setting the rules in academia. These structures are outdated, and many academics are frustrated that it must be that way. But the truth is that it does not have to be that way. The spark has already been ignited and more scientists across countries are speaking up. Therefore, a more empathic and trustful academia is not just a distant future possibility. It’s already here.  

Examples of the testimonies from the campaign #pleasedontstealmywork: 

• “ I was a foreign postdoc at a Danish university. Conducted research, wrote the first full draft of the research article and sent to the supervisor for comments. Instead of commenting, the supervisor removed me from my own research stating I did no work. When I protested and wrote to the section head, I was threatened. Section head (a friend of the supervisor) ignored the issue. I wrote to the named professor from the faculty, and also to department head. Supervisor threatened to ruin my career and sends three negative reference letters to potential employers where I am interviewing. I lost two jobs as a result. I wrote to the Practice committee that states that nothing wrong happened as there was no authorship agreement, so supervisor ‘taking over the research’ is within his right. Supervisor contacts my previous workplaces to threaten me (I receive messages saying black and brown people don’t belong to the white land of Europe). This is finally reported to the Rector’s office, who dismiss the case. No action against the supervisor. As a foreign postdoc, I do not have rights to stay and money to fight an expensive legal battle in Denmark.”
• “Professor made graduate student write a scientific article based on the master thesis. In the last minute before the article was submitted for peer-review, the professor stole the work by making himself/herself first author of the article.”
• “There is a silent acceptance of guest authorship, which no one at management level is willing to discuss. Universities make money, ranking, and prestige, and university professors make h-index and promotion. Some professors build their careers and win numerous prestigious prizes by guest authoring.”
• “I was literally told that I was expected to ‘ghost author’ one or more research papers, leading in practice but assigned only co-authorship on the written work. In both instances I informed leadership but without response, as far as I am aware.”
• “Senior academic is listed on every single paper that leads our department without living up to Vancouver guidelines. No substantial contribution. Simply being the leader of the department warrants an authorship.”
• “[Ghost authoring or honorary authoring, ed.] has no repercussions from management, as the senior academics are the management. If I voice Vancouver guidelines, I am being told that they ALWAYS live up to Vancouver guidelines, and I am just not understanding just how much they were part of the conception of the projects.”
• “I forwarded a grant application to a person I wanted to be part of an expert panel hoping for a positive response to increase the application’s chances of success. Unfortunately, I was not awarded funding. However, three months later I noticed that a colleague from another research institution had received funding for an identical project having an identical idea, research question, methods etc. That colleague was close friends with the person from the expert panel, whom I had sent the original application to. I talked to my manager about it, but he just said that we could not prove anything so there was nothing we could do about it.”
• “At my current institution ghost authorship (GA) is supported by the management and directly encouraged in for instance working group gatherings and other meetings with officers in the institution. GA is very much a part of daily practice at the faculty and it is openly talked about as well as considered a common part of conventional academic work on a general level. Furthermore, GA is regarded as a kind of ‘academic currency’ with which to trade and include (or lure) academic pings/capacities/big shots into future collaboration.”

All testimonies are anonymized by a few members of the PhD association network of Denmark. The campaign can be accessed here.

The 120 testimonies were published in English here.

---