51 



for a joint publication or for independent publication, as seems advis- 

 able and just by the head of the department. In any case, the fact 

 must not be lost sight of that the head of a department is responsible 

 for the publications of his department. If an assistant publishes a 

 paper that is a discredit to himself, it is also a discredit to the head 

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

 assistant publishes 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 be but fair to an assistant, if he has carried on a 

 piece of work of his own planning and direction and writes a valuable 

 paper upon the same, he ought to be allowed to publish under 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 carrying on the 

 experiment and making the observations maj 7 be entirely 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 cases. 



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- 

 tempted 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 work would usually do away with dissatisfaction in these 

 matters. 



Originality and independent work upon the part of an assistant are 

 the qualities especially worthy of recognition, and in their absence 

 there is very little that an assistant could reasonably ask in the way of 

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

 At the same time I should prefer to give credit where there is little 

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

 than his work deserves. 



There are several phases of this subject that should be treated 

 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 discussed, in the hope 

 that we may agree upon general plans for giving credits to those who 

 assist us in our various lines of work. 



Mr. Fletcher heartily agreed with the sentiments expressed in the 

 paper. He thought that if all the work was done by the assistant 

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

 department should be, if anything, overgenerous in giving credit to his 

 assistants. Fortunately, this was usually the case now in America. 



