Continuing SarahM question, what do you think about the following situation: has the name of the person who did the data analysis for the paper to go on the paper as well? I often do statistical data analysis for other people (i.e. analysis+report on findings), they pay for it, but my name never goes on papers, despite they include in the paper my report without or with minor corrections. Isnt data analysis as valuable contribution to the study as the rest, especially taking into account that there are not so many people who can do compex analysis as I do? What are your opinions and/or experiences?

I'm not sure, but I think that if they have paid for the analysis, then they don't have to reference you.

We were contemplating sending some samples out for analysis, and they would either be analysed for free and we share the rights, or we could pay and then fully own the rights (needless to say, we'd rather pay and own the data).

Hmm, but why other people who also get paid for doing a study, do get on the paper but not the data analist?:)

That is a grey area. There are many cases where IP and copyright ownership is determined ad hoc or assigned as per prior agreement between the potential creators of the copyright (and even non-creators getting in on the deal).

I'm also not entirely sure on this but if they paid you for your services, then it's a service they paid for and that's that, in which case it would be nice for them to include you in the 'thank you' list rather than as a co-author. UNLESS, you made a prior arrangement with them to be acknowledged.

I know of a neuropathologist who performed definitive diagnoses as part of the job for years, and it was like a nuclear bomb exploded when it was discovered that researchers were using the diagnosed tissue in their published (or-soon-to-be published) research without including the neuropathologist as co-author. There was a very firm stand against the offer to include a thank-you acknowledgement. The neuropathologist was eventually included as co-author. I suppose I could argue both ways for and against inclusion as co-author in this circumstance but I must say the argument seemed to point towards inclusion in this case.

The argument for inclusion in the anecdote described above came down to the role of the neuropathologist, as well as the rank & title, proximity (physical or otherwise) and relationship (professional and personal) to the other researchers.

Other than that, there was no clear cut argument here, no clear cut evidence for and against.