51 



for a joint publication or for indcix^ndont publicalion, as scmmiis advis- 

 able and just by the head of the departni(?nt. In any case, Iho dicl 

 must not be lost sii^htof lliat the head of a department is responsible 

 for the i)ubli('ations of his department. If an assistant puhlishcs a 

 paper that is a discredit to himself, it is also a discn.'dit to the head 

 of the department in which he works. On the other hand, if an 

 assistant })nblishes a paper- that is a credit to himself, that credit is 

 reflected also upon the head of the department. It therefore seems 

 to the writer to 1k' hut fail' t(» an assistant, if he has carried on a 

 piece of woi'k of his own plannin.u' and direction and writes a valuable 

 paper upon the same, he ought to be allowed to publish uiuh-r his 

 own signature. If the work has been largely planned and directed 

 by his superior, the assistant has no reason to expect anything more 

 than joint authorship, although the actual work in cai-rving on the 

 experiment and making the observations may be entii-ely his. 



When the work of an assistant is purely perfunctory and done 

 under direction, the writer sees no special reason why credit should 

 be given in ordinary eases. 



As stated in the outset, the whole matter of giving credit for assist- 

 ance can not be determined by hard and fast rules. I have at- 

 tem[)ted to give what seem to me to be the broad, general principles 

 which should regulate such matters. A definite understanding be- 

 tween the head of a department and an assistant when the latter 

 begins woi-k would usually do away with dissatisfaction in these 

 matters. 



Originalit}' and independent work upon the pai-t of an assistant are 

 the <iualities especially worthy of recognition, and in their absence 

 there is very little that an assistant could i-easonably ask in the way of 

 special credits in the publications of the one who directed the wdik. 

 At the same time I should i)i'efer to give credit where there is litth^ 

 reason for doing so than to appear to be giving an assistant less credit 

 than his work deserves. 



There are several jihases of this subject that should be treat<Ml 

 more at length. I have only attempted to write enough to get the 

 subject well before the Association, and there may be those present 

 who have views widely at variance with those I have expressed. I 

 shall be glad to have the subject thoroughly discu.ssed, in the hope 

 that we may agree upon genci-al plans for gi\ iiig credits lo those who 

 assist us in oui- \arioMs lines of work. 



Mr. I'Melcher heart ily agi'ced with the sent imenis ex j)ressed in the 

 pa[)er. He thought that if all the woi-U was done by the assistant 

 that he should have the credit, and that in all cases the chief of the 

 depart ment should be, if anyt hing, overgenerous in giving credit to his 

 assistants. Fortunately, this was usually the case n(»w in America. 



