Reply Discussion

Discussion reply:

Please reply to these 2 discussion post, have included some sample reply for your convenience (300 words each reply)

Post 1:

When and what Neerja should say to Professor Hari and Rahul

If Professor Hari were able to review Neerja's draught prior to its completion, it would be to everyone's advantage, including Neerja and Professor Hari. As a consequence of this, Neerja'sfinal document would be improved by the Professor's expertise, and Professor Hari's work would be better ready for publication. Following this, it is Neerja's duty to let the faculty member, Professor Hari, know about the suggested coauthor (Rahul), who will be working on the study chapter. It is vital for Neerja to inform Professor Hari that she was advised to read a book that was authored by the CEO of the BLM. Neerja must do this as soon as possible. After incorporating the new data into the first draught of the study chapter, she phoned Rahul to enquire about it and provide a response. This was done after she had already completed the first draught. Nevertheless, after the date to which he had committed, he started delaying, and when she eventually received it, she realised that Rahul had incorporated a copyright content, which was located on the website of BLM. Furthermore, the coauthor did not contribute any further materials or help in any other form. She has to stress even more that his behaviour was discouraging, and that she is not pleased or content with the response that he gave her. To begin, she was taken aback when she discovered that the freshly added content was identical to that of the BLM website, right down to the tiniest of particulars. Which, had she chosen to ignore it, would have led to legal repercussions for her in the future. She should mention the CLS publishing policy for the duplicate or stolen work (without the authorization of author or citation), and she should also emphasise the fact that an author's expulsion from the author list will result from an improper or insignificant contribution to the work. (This article was originally written by Richard B. Primack and published in 2014) If a writer want to put into action a complete plan for authorship declaration, she should request to CLS that the organisation draught a new policy. If this event may be used as a model for handling similar situations in the future, then Neerja wants to learn more about how to avoid the same outcome. Polls will help her evaluate the advantages, disadvantages, and recommendations for academic writing, all of which could have an impact on the organization's reputation. She must first conduct the surveys in order to accomplish her purpose successfully.

Rahul:

It is important for Neerja to convey to Rahul the importance of meeting the deadline for submitting the final draught to Professor Hari. It is important to point out that he made great use of the extended timetable; nonetheless, she was still unsatisfied with the efforts that he put in. In point of fact, he has stolen her work by violating the copyright on it. Neerja has the option of pressing him for his contribution before the paper is turned in, which she can do if he wishes to continue to be listed as a co-author. In any event, she ought to make it clear to him that she won't be sticking around for very much longer. In addition, she needs to make it very clear to him whether or not the exclusion of his name is supported by the rules and policies of CLS. Neerja should make a copy of the identical communication and send it to both Professor Unni and Professor Hari so that Rahul's misunderstandings can be put into proper perspective.

References

• On Academic Authorship. (n.d.). Retrieved from Stanford:  https://doresearch.stanford.edu/policies/research-policy handbook/conductresearch/academic-authorship 

• By Richard B. Primack, P. J. (2014, July 9). Co-authors gone bad – how to avoid publishing conflicts. Retrieved from Elsevier Wordmark: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/coauthors-gone-bad-how-to-avoid-publishing-conflicts  

• Clement, T. P. (2013, June 29). Authorship Matrix. Retrieved from SpringerLink: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/S11948-013-9454-3

Sample Reply to post 1:

Reply and Analysis of the Post: "Discussion 3" As stated in the post, Neerja is responsible for letting Professor Hari know that she was recommended to read a book by the CEO of BLM. After adding the new data to the initial draft of the study chapter, she called Rahul to inquire about it and offer a comment. Afterward, she emailed the chapter to be proofread. She has to emphasize even more that his conduct was discouraging and that she is not satisfied or content with the response that he provided her. Both of these sentiments are necessary because of the nature of his actions. Neerja is gathering information through a survey regarding the benefits and drawbacks of academic writing and strategies for avoiding circumstances that are analogous to those she has encountered in the past. If a writer is interested in putting a strategy for authorship declaration into action, she should submit a request to CLS requesting that the organization develop a new policy (Primack, 2019). The results of the polls will assist her in evaluating the benefits, drawbacks, and suggestions for academic writing, all of which have the potential to affect the organization's reputation. Regarding Rahul, I concur that it is essential for Neerja to explain to Rahul the significance of achieving the deadline for delivering the final draft to Professor Hari. I think it is essential that Neerja communicate this to Rahul. Even though he put in much work, she was not happy with his results despite his excellent use of the expanded schedule. It is necessary to call this out. He has stolen her work by acting in a manner that violates the copyright that was placed on it. If he wants to continue to be included as a co-author on the paper, Neerja has the option of pressuring him for his contribution before the paper is handed in. She can do this if he so desires. In any case, she has to make it evident to him that she will not be remaining in the area for a significant additional time. In addition, she needs to make it very apparent to him whether or not the rules and regulations of CLS justify the exclusion of his name. She needs to make this very plain to him. Neerja has to create a duplicate of the communication she sent to Rahul and email it to both Professor Unni and Professor Hari so that Rahul's misconceptions may be clarified and put in the appropriate context. References Primack, R. (2019, November 28). Co-authors gone bad – how to avoid publishing conflicts. Elsevier Connect. Retrieved June 29, 2022, from https://www.elsevier.com/connect/co-authors-gone-bad-how-to-avoid-publishing-conflicts

Post 2:

ased on the Case Study in Lesson 3, "What can Neerja say, to Rahul and Professor Hari, about the co-authorship? When and how?." Use at least 3 academic references.

 

As Neerja has been given an opportunity to work as assistant for writing a book for BLM ltd. The vision for this highly ranked research center was to create and disseminate research-based knowledge. Professor Hari, who has been serving as a faculty member at CLS, extended the offer to Neerja for support in the book writing for the new edited volume of Leadership and Organizational Transformation. As a part-time doctoral student for organizational behavior and ongoing working experience with Professor Hari with her research on ‘Capability building for Organizational Transformation”, this opportunity made her excited.

When aspiring doctoral student with 20 years of experience in applied research in IT field as a Director of Research at BLM Ltd., name Rahul joined the team at CLS, which drew a lot of team members attention towards him, Including Professor Hari and Neerja. This brings us to the issue of co-authorship in the book writing for CLS. As Rahul being part of the BLM for so long, Neerja extended an offer to be part of this book publication as his input will be so much help with background information.

As we have seen the valuable Rahul has given feedback was on adding some background information about BLT, Ltd. Neerja has been working hard towards tight deadlines and continually trying to keep Rahul in a loop where he hasn’t been so responsive or involved in the work. According to Habron, and Dann working in teams can improve the quality of research and generate and refine ideas, though it can be a bit difficult working with different prospective and expertise and getting to the one point. There can be difficulties working with a team with expected/ promised contribution towards the project (Habron, & Dann, 2002).

Most of the difficulties or misunderstandings can be resolved with communication but its very difficult to work with someone who is not passionate about work or does not want to contribute (Weltzin, & et.al., 2006). Neerja tried her best to resolve the distant communication from Rahul, yet there was no follow-up from him.

I believe Neerja should clarify her work and Rahul’s contribution to the book to Professor Hari. I do not believe Rahul’s contribution was called as co-author  (Bennett, and Gadlin, 2012). First, she can reach out to Professor Hari about her contribution, research, hours of work, and dedication to book writing before submitting it to BLT, Ltd. Next, she can let him know what are resources supported towards book completion including Rahul’s work. If helping with some guidelines can be called a coauthor, that list can outgrow without a doubt. Rahul’s guidance sure helped her to open another perspective to work which is not relevant to the work of the co-author. The way of explaining the situation to the professor should be toward the fair point of contribution. Eliminating Rahul as co-author is not a negative impact of Neerja’s perspective and it should be explained in a way that the professor understands his working habits of Rahul and that all the work has been done by Neerja fairly.

  

References:

Habron, G., &Dann, S. (2002). Breathing life into the case study approach: Active learning in an introductory natural resource management class. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 13(2/3), 41-58.

Bennett, M., Gadlin, H.,(2012). Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. Journal of Investigative Medicine 60: 768-775.

Weltzin, F. & et.al. (2006). Authorship in ecology: attribution, accountability, and responsibility. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 435-441. 

Sample Reply:

Hello Great post! I agree that Neerja was given the opportunity to work as an assistant on a book for BLM Ltd. This highly regarded research center's vision was to generate and disseminate research-based knowledge. Professor Hari, a CLS faculty member, extended the offer to Neerja for assistance with the book writing for the new edited volume of Leadership and Organizational Transformation. As a part-time doctoral student in organizational behavior with ongoing research with Professor Hari on "Capability Building for Organizational Transformation," this opportunity piqued her interest. I have also assessed the point same as you here: As we can see, Rahul's valuable feedback was on adding some background information about BLT, Ltd. Neerja has been working hard to meet tight deadlines while also keeping Rahul in the loop when he hasn't been as responsive or involved in the work. Working in teams, according to Habron and Dann, can improve the quality of research as well as generate and refine ideas, though it can be difficult working with different perspectives and expertise and getting to the same point. Working with a team that has an expected/promised contribution to the project can be difficult. Neerja, I believe, should explain her work and Rahul's contribution to the book to Professor Hari. I don't believe Rahul's contribution was referred to as a co-author (Bennett, and Gadlin, 2012). Before submitting it to BLT, Ltd., she should contact Professor Hari to discuss her contribution, research, hours of work, and dedication to book writing. She can then inform him of the resources available to help complete the book, including Rahul's work. If assisting with some guidelines qualifies as coauthorship, that list will undoubtedly grow. Rahul's advice certainly assisted her in opening another perspective to work that was not relevant to the work of the co-author.

300 words