Collaborative Credit Omission — Engineer A Failure to Credit Five Co-Designers
P · Principle
Individual
http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#Collaborative_Credit_Omission_—_Engineer_A_Failure_to_Credit_Five_Co-Designers
Properties
Instance of
CollaborativeCreditOmissionMisrepresentationProhibitioninEmploymentSeeking
http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#CollaborativeCreditOmissionMisrepresentationProhibitioninEmploymentSeeking
Applied to
Resume attribution of jointly-designed patented products
Balancing with
Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle
Concrete expression
Engineer A violated Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to the five other staff engineers who jointly designed the patented products; the Board held that Engineer A had an obligation to express that the design work was a team effort, though not necessarily to name the individual team members
Confidence
0.97
Importance
high
Interpretation
The obligation to credit collaborative work does not require naming co-contributors on a resume, but does require acknowledging the team-based nature of the work rather than allowing an individual-credit implication to stand
Invoked by
Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer
Tension resolution
The minimum compliance standard — noting team effort without naming individuals — balances the engineer's legitimate interest in presenting qualifications favorably against the obligation to accurately represent collaborative contributions
Source Evidence
Source text
Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
Text references
By noting such, we believe that in the context of the fact in this case, Engineer A would be in compliance with the spirit and intent of Section III.10.a.
Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products
While we certainly are not suggesting that Engineer A indicate the names of the five other engineers on his employment resume, we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort
TTL
@prefix owl: <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#> .
@prefix proeth: <http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#> .
@prefix prov: <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> .
@prefix rdfs: <http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#> .
@prefix xsd: <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#> .
<http://proethica.org/ontology/case/135#Collaborative_Credit_Omission_—_Engineer_A_Failure_to_Credit_Five_Co-Designers> a proeth:CollaborativeCreditOmissionMisrepresentationProhibitioninEmploymentSeeking,
owl:NamedIndividual ;
rdfs:label "Collaborative Credit Omission — Engineer A Failure to Credit Five Co-Designers" ;
proeth:appliedto "Resume attribution of jointly-designed patented products" ;
proeth:balancingwith "Contextual Resume Emphasis Permissibility Principle" ;
proeth:conceptCategory "Principle" ;
proeth:concreteexpression "Engineer A violated Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to the five other staff engineers who jointly designed the patented products; the Board held that Engineer A had an obligation to express that the design work was a team effort, though not necessarily to name the individual team members" ;
proeth:confidence "0.97" ;
proeth:discoveredincase "135" ;
proeth:discoveredinpass "2" ;
proeth:discoveredinsection "discussion" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredat "2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00" ;
proeth:firstdiscoveredincase "135" ;
proeth:generatedattime "2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00" ;
proeth:importance "high" ;
proeth:interpretation "The obligation to credit collaborative work does not require naming co-contributors on a resume, but does require acknowledging the team-based nature of the work rather than allowing an individual-credit implication to stand" ;
proeth:invokedby "Engineer A Collaborative Credit Misrepresenting Job-Seeking Engineer" ;
proeth:principleclass "Collaborative Credit Omission Misrepresentation Prohibition in Employment Seeking" ;
proeth:sourcetext "Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products" ;
proeth:tensionresolution "The minimum compliance standard — noting team effort without naming individuals — balances the engineer's legitimate interest in presenting qualifications favorably against the obligation to accurately represent collaborative contributions" ;
proeth:textreferences "By noting such, we believe that in the context of the fact in this case, Engineer A would be in compliance with the spirit and intent of Section III.10.a.",
"Engineer A appears to have been in violation of Section III.10.a. by failing to provide due credit to those five other staff engineers who worked with Engineer A in designing certain products",
"While we certainly are not suggesting that Engineer A indicate the names of the five other engineers on his employment resume, we do believe that Engineer A has an obligation to express the fact that the design work was performed as a result of a team effort as opposed to an individual effort" ;
proeth:wasattributedto "Case 135 Extraction" ;
prov:generatedAtTime "2026-03-01T15:57:44.750620"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prov:wasGeneratedBy "ProEthica Case 135 Extraction" .
Metadata
Extraction details
Discovered in case
135
Discovered in pass
2
Discovered in section
discussion
First discovered
2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
First case
135
Generated
2026-03-01T15:47:00.091383+00:00
Attributed to
Case 135 Extraction
Generated
2026-03-01T15:57:44.750620
Generated by
ProEthica Case 135 Extraction