[Nhcoll-l] Antw: Re: [EXTERN] Re: Access and authorship in natural history collections

Tue Feb 3 01:49:51 EST 2026

Hello all,,
I would also like to add my comments here – both as a collection
employee and as the publisher and editor of a entomological journal.
Such an approach is highly questionable.
A co-author should make an essential contribution to the content of a
publication. 

Supporting work is not part of this. In the worst case, this could even
lead to someone becoming a co-author of a publication with which they do
not agree in terms of content.

Such information belongs in the acknowledgements. These
acknowledgements are an expression of respect and gratitude!

A side note:
This practice is (unfortunately) occasionally used in Nagoya Protocol
procedures.
Here, scientists, administrators or politicians from the giving
countries or institutions become co-authors in order to ensure a fair
Benefit-sharing.
I once discussed this with employees of the German Research Foundation:
it was clearly stated that this approach clearly violates good
scientific practice and could potentially lead to the discontinuation of
research funding.

All the best
Joachim

--  
Joachim Haendel

Center of Natural Science Collections
of the Martin Luther University (ZNS)
- Zoological Collection -

Domplatz 4
D-06099 Halle (Saale)
Germany

Phone:  +49 345 - 55 26 447
Email: joachim.haendel at zns.uni-halle.de

>>> John E Simmons <simmons.johne at gmail.com> schrieb am 02.02.2026 um
21:55:
This is a very interesting discussion, and I appreciate all of the
viewpoints expressed so far. It is an important discussion to have.

I have worked with natural history collections for nearly six decades
(since my freshman year in college in 1969) so I have seen a lot of
changes in the field, particularly in who collects specimens, who has
collections, and who uses collections. I was a full-time collections
manager at the California Academy of Sciences (4 years), at the Natural
History Museum at the University of Kansas (26 years), I have been an
independent collections consultant since 2008, and I have published
widely on collections and collection care.

FIRST--the idea that a staff member of an institution should be
automatically included as an author simplify for making a loan of
specimens or access to specimens possible is hogwash. If that was a
standard, I would have an astounding publication record. A simple
acknowledgement is appropriate, but nothing more. The very idea seems to
go along with the ridiculous trend of having 15 or 20 authors on a
single publication. Enough with authorship inflation already.

SECOND--Back in the Pleistocene when I first started working
collections, there was an informal quid pro quo among collecting
institutions. Staff or students from institution A would borrow B, who
would loan to C, and so forth so that the costs of preparing loans or
providing access  (which can be very high) were evened out over time.
This has not been true since the advent of molecular systematics in the
late 1980s. Most (but not all) of the people borrowing specimens or
accessing specimens in collections today do not work for collecting
institutions and do not collect specimens that others might use, so the
system is out of balance. Passing along the costs of borrowing
specimens, in particular, is reasonable. Most curators can easily
determine which institutions are reciprocal  (e.g., offer collection
access or loans themselves) and which are not. This is only fair. The
collecting institutions are already burdened with the cost of upkeep of
collections; they should not be expected to bear the cost of loans to
researchers who do not have collections to loan. Researchers without
collections would not expect cost-free use of scanning electron
microscopes, etc., and should not expect cost-free collection loans,
either.  

Yes, collections belong to all of us, but no, we do not all help
support collections, do we?

--John

John E. Simmons
Writer and Museum Consultant
Museologica
and
Research Associate, Earth and Mineral Sciences Museum & Art Gallery
Penn State University
and
Investigador Asociado, Departamento de Ornitologia
Museo de Historia Natural, Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos,
Lima

On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 2:42 PM Erika Natarajan <erika at natarajan.ca>
wrote:

I think this discussion highlights a broader ethical distortion in
scientific publishing and research culture. Publications were originally
meant to disseminate discoveries and advance knowledge. Over time,
however, institutional reward systems have shifted the focus toward
authorship as a metric, sometimes regardless of the actual quality,
rigor, or originality of the data. In that context, authorship risks
becoming a form of currency rather than a reflection of genuine
intellectual contribution.
I would also like to gently challenge the assumption that collections
in “wealthier” or “first-world” countries are inherently better
supported or better managed than those in countries such as Colombia. I
am currently volunteering in a large museum in a high-income country,
and what I observe daily is that heavy bureaucracy, rigid administrative
structures, and institutional inertia often hinder good collection care
and research access — even when there is an excellent and highly
committed curator.
Conversely, many collections in Colombia operate under severe material
constraints, yet are sustained by extraordinary scientific dedication,
deep local expertise, and strong engagement with regional biodiversity.
Their main limitation is not a lack of competence or commitment, but a
lack of institutional recognition and structural support. These are
fundamentally different challenges.
For these reasons, I think it is misleading to frame this issue as a
simple dichotomy between “rich country” and “LMIC” collections. Both
operate under systemic pressures that can distort ethical practices in
different ways. Mandatory or expected authorship, however, remains
problematic in any context if it is not based on real intellectual
contribution.
Supporting underfunded collections should be achieved through fair and
voluntary collaboration, shared research agendas, funding, training, and
infrastructure — not by redefining authorship as compensation.
Ultimately, what matters most is not who signs the paper, but the
discovery itself and its contribution to scientific knowledge. Perhaps
emerging tools, including AI, can help us refocus evaluation on
scientific content and impact rather than on name accumulation.

Erika Isabel Natarajan

On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 11:16 AM Andrew J. Crawford
<crawfordaj at gmail.com> wrote:

What a great question and interesting topic for discussion.  Several
issues have been brought up and points of view shared, to which I will
add one more I haven't seen in this threat. 

In principle, I am against the notion that me providing a service as
curator implies I should be on your paper. I am providing a service to
the community, and I hope to enjoy reciprocity in my own work and
maintain good relationships with other collections, as someone already
mentioned in this thread.  Also, the collections are not mine, I am only
the temporary custodian of this national or global patrimony.   Most
curators are already being paid to support the collections and increase
their use, and probably were hired without the expectation of being on
papers developed by users of the collection.  If the visitor is asking
too much of the curator, beyond their normal duties, the curator can
always say "No, come do that yourself, we cannot offer that service at
this time."  

That said, now imagine you coming from a relatively rich country and
you visit a developing nation, like Colombia, and you invoke the
principle of reciprocity.  The problem is that most collections in
Colombia, and likely in Lower to Middle-income countries (LMIC)
generally, just do not have the institutional support you find at a
larger institution in a wealthier country. 	In Colombia, I know of
collections with really valuable material that receive basically no
institutional support with literally no salaries -- functioning by
student volunteers and professors paid to teach, with no institutional
recognition of their curatorial dedication.  Sometimes the curator is
not paid to curate.  Likely no one is paid for their expertise, or to
process permits, take measurements, or ship packages. The individual
grant paying for the research by the visitor from a wealthy country is
likely many times bigger than the entire annual budget for many
collections in LMICs.  (I know all collections in the world are
short-staffed and short on resources, but the difference between "less
than you need" and "nothing" is harsh.)

Thus, if I want to access for example tissues from a collection in
Colombia, especially a smaller collection with little support, and the
curator asks to be on my future paper, perhaps this is the least I can
do to support them and thank them for their personal sacrifices towards
maintaining these valuable regional collections that support
biodiversity inventories & systematics, and train a population of
deserving students. If the tissues are from a taxonomic group they have
experience with, my future paper will only be that much improved by
having them on board as a true collaborator, anyway.    

And if I had a decent-sized grant, I might take the next step and say,
"Thanks for sharing and helping me make my own research better.  Now
let's talk about your ideas. What's interesting to you as a biodiversity
scientist or how can we help you as a curator?"  

Anyway, all these issues are context-dependent, and the world is much
more complex than what I outlined above.   I just wanted to mention this
additional variable where we might make slightly different decisions as
contexts change. 

All best wishes, 
  -Andrew

Andrew J. Crawford
Museo de Historia Natural C.J. Marinkelle (ANDES)
Department of Biological Sciences, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia, South America
@crawfordaj.bsky.social
IG: @craw.crawdad

On Mon, Feb 2, 2026 at 10:07 AM Dirk Neumann <d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de>
wrote:

Hi Luis,

the case I mentioned was real scientific input (i.e. prior
determination of faunal remains to species level be sure that requested
species are included in the bone rubble and the taxonomic IDs are
correct). This is justified, especially if this material is used for
stable isotopes or aDNA (because the bones are previously undetermined
and unrecognised in the bags with the archaeological material).

Also for tissues MTAs - as in our case - this can be justified.
Depending on the contractual conditions the material war originally
accessioned under the respective access laws of the Provider Country /
Nagoya Protocol. In this case, it can be that co-authorship is a
contractual requirement that arises independent of the scientific
input.

Of course, the latter raises questions towards agreed principles for
co-authorship for publications, and I am not sure if this is the case
her, just wanted to mention that such linkages with MTAs for tissue
request can occur.

With best wishes
Dirk

Am 02.02.2026 um 15:27 schrieb Luis Ceríaco:

Thank you all for your input.

It is not strange to have curators and collection managers from the
different institutions we work with or consult specimens as co-authors.
In many cases it makes sense and it is completely legitimate. This can
be discussed between the leading author and the staff.
As Dirk said, in some situations there are extra efforts that the staff
needs to make to make the collection accessible and that can be
recognized by the authors (while not necessarily as authorship). In
other situations, when someone cannot physically visit the collection
and request the collection manager to, let's say, count the scales of
200 lizards, that most likely can turn into what we envision as a
collaboration and thus deserves authorship.
What shocked me the most in this case is that it is written in the
official documentation (in this case a MTA for tissues), that a "demand
of 50 specimens justify co-authorship" of the local staff. 
I'm aware of some curators that "force" themselves into papers that
used their collections, but having this into official policy is a whole
other situation...

Em seg., 2 de fev. de 2026 às 14:11, Taylor, Sarah
<sarah.taylor at uconn.edu> escreveu:

I have been offered authorship on publications (which I declined) twice
after researcher visits to our herbarium. From the researchers'
perspective, the contributions I made to their research (time, expertise
on recommending specimens they might want to examine, assistance with
equipment, and assistance accessing publications) merited recognition
above mention in the acknowledgments section. From my perspective, I
didn't offer original ideas, contribute to analysis, or write the
resulting papers.

In my experience, asking for authorship in exchange for loans/research
visits is definitely NOT common or a new trend. I also think it's likely
to be ineffective - every collection I know of, including mine, asks
researchers to a) acknowledge the collection in publications and b) send
a pdf or, at the least, citation of publications, and the success rate
of request (b) is well below 20%. The success rate of request (a) seems
higher but I have definitely found peer-reviewed publications that use
images of CONN specimens with zero reference to our herbarium anywhere
in the paper.

This is an interesting topic and two more replies have come in since I
started typing - I'm looking forward to the discussion.

Best,
Sarah

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Sarah Taylor, PhD

Scientific Collections Manager

George Safford Torrey Herbarium (CONN)
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of Connecticut
75 North Eagleville Road, Unit 3043
Storrs, Connecticut 06269-3043
U.S.A.

P: 860.486.1889
F: 860.486.4320
https://biodiversity.uconn.edu/herbarium/

Pronouns: she/her or they/them

From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of Scott A
Schaefer <schaefer at amnh.org>
Sent: Monday, February 2, 2026 8:55 AM
To: Luis Ceríaco <luisceriaco at gmail.com>; NHCOLL-new
<nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: [Nhcoll-l] Access and authorship in natural history
collections

*External sender: This message was not sent through the UConn email
system. It might be safe, but use caution before interacting with links,
attachments, or requests.*

This sounds like an egregious abuse of the principal of reciprocity
inherent to research use of museum collections and is not something I’ve
heard of in my 40+ years of museum work. Whether or not such collections
were built and are now maintained by “public money”, the understanding
of reciprocity (= you do for me, I do for you) is part of what
facilitates research use of museum collections and extends from loan
approvals and processing to shipping and packaging. I would hope this
example is isolated to some misplaced thinking by uninformed people.

I am also aware of other recent practices that threaten the reciprocity
agreement, such as charges levied for permit applications required for
both the loan approval and the export. In response, curators and
collection managers may be encouraged to avoid such lending practices by
refusing to participate— both in borrowing and lending to these
institutions.

The community would be served by hearing from others that have been
impacted by these practices.

Scott

__________________________________________
Scott A. Schaefer, Ph.D.
Dean of Science for Collections and the 
	   Public Understanding of Science
Director, Institute for Comparative Genomics
Curator and Professor

American Museum of Natural History
( https://amnh.org/) 
200 Central Park West
New York, NY 10024-5192 USA

Office: 212-769-5652
Mobile: 215-570-2943
Email:schaefer at amnh.org

From: Nhcoll-l <nhcoll-l-bounces at mailman.yale.edu> on behalf of Luis
Ceríaco <luisceriaco at gmail.com>
Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 at 8:23 AM
To: NHCOLL-new <nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu>
Subject: [Nhcoll-l] Access and authorship in natural history
collections

EXTERNAL SENDER

Dear colleagues,

Recently I've learned through a colleague that was requesting access to
specimens from a big European natural history institution, that it was
expected for him to include staff members for that given institution in
the authorship of any research that would come from that access,
especially if the access was above a certain number of specimens. This
is apparently now part of the official loan/access agreement of that
institution.

I was quite shocked. In the last 15 years I've been an active user of
natural history collections and had my share of curatorship/collection
management work, in different countries and different continents, and
I've never encountered such "in-your-face" and abhorrent demand.
Collections have been built with public money and are kept through
public money (most of the times) - thus they should be seen as a public
good, not a way to enrich the CV of staff members. 

That got me curious - is this a new trend or I've been really lucky so
far?

--
_________________________________________________________
Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ph.D.,
Commissioner  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Invited Curator of the Herpetological Collections at Museu Nacional de

História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, Portugal
CIBIO/InBIO - Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources
University of Porto, Portugal
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis-Ceriaco
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0591-9978
Scopus Author ID: 51260938100

-- 
_________________________________________________________
Luis M. P. Ceríaco, Ph.D.,
Commissioner  International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
Invited Curator of the Herpetological Collections at Museu Nacional de

História Natural e da Ciência, Lisbon, Portugal
CIBIO/InBIO - Research Center in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources
University of Porto, Portugal
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luis-Ceriaco
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-0591-9978
Scopus Author ID: 51260938100

_______________________________________________ Nhcoll-l mailing
listNhcoll-l at mailman.yale.eduhttps://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l
_______________________________________________ NHCOLL-L is brought to
you by the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections
(SPNHC), an international society whose mission is to improve the
preservation, conservation and management of natural history collections
to ensure their continuing value to society. See http://www.spnhc.org
for membership information. Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
-- 
****

Dirk Neumann
Collection Manager, Hamburg

Postal address:
Museum of Nature Hamburg
Leibniz Institute for the Analysis
of Biodiversity Change
Dirk Neumann
Martin-Luther-King-Platz 3
20146Hamburg
+49 40238 317 –628
d.neumann at leibniz-lib.de
www.leibniz-lib.de

-- 
Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian
Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael Wappelhorst

-- 
Stiftung Leibniz-Institut zur Analyse des Biodiversitätswandels
Postanschrift: Adenauerallee 127, 53113 Bonn, Germany

Stiftung des öffentlichen Rechts;
Generaldirektion: Prof. Dr. Bernhard Misof (Generaldirektor), Adrian
Grüter (Kaufm. Geschäftsführer)
Sitz der Stiftung: Adenauerallee 160 in Bonn
Vorsitzender des Stiftungsrates: Dr. Michael H. Wappelhorst
_______________________________________________
Nhcoll-l mailing list
Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l

_______________________________________________
NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
society. See http://www.spnhc.org for membership information.
Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
_______________________________________________
Nhcoll-l mailing list
Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l

_______________________________________________
NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
society. See http://www.spnhc.org for membership information.
Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
_______________________________________________

Nhcoll-l mailing list
Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l

_______________________________________________
NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
society. See http://www.spnhc.org for membership information.
Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20260203/7eb3f36a/attachment.html>