Authorship: Few Myths and Misconceptions (original) (raw)
Related papers
PLoS ONE, 2011
Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. Methods: We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. Results: The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. Interpretation: High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.
SpringerBriefs in ethics, 2016
Publishing is the currency of academia, it is in large part the measure of the worth of an investigator in any academic field. The need to publish, combined with other institutional pressures for funding, promotion, etc., may contribute to temptations to be named as authors inappropriately or worse. Institutional norms, and diverging norms among various fields, make the landscape for rules about authorship complex. To what degree and for what reasons must authors be named and in what order? What scientific norms demand which forms of behavior by an author regarding truth? What counts as authorship, and why is this important to science? I explore these issues below and offer some guidance for authors concerned about conflicts with norms of authorship within and among institutions, taking cues from the Mertonian norms discussed above.
New developments in publishing related to authorship
Prilozi / Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite, Oddelenie za biološki i medicinski nauki = Contributions / Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Section of Biological and Medical Sciences, 2014
Aim: To present the inappropriate types of authorship and practice, and the most recent developments related to basic principles and criteria to a fair system for allocating authorship in scientific publications. Methods: An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. Results: Working in multidisciplinary teams is a common feature of modern research processes. The most sensitive question is how to decide on who to acknowledge as author of a multi-authored publication. The pertinence of this question is growing with the increasing importance of individual ecords for professional status and career. However, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to serious conflicts and disputes among coworkers which could even endanger cooperation and successful completion of a research project. It seems that discussion and education about ethical standards and practical guidelines for fairly allocating authorship are insufficient and the question of ethical practices related to authorship in multi-authored publications remains generally unresolved. Conclusion: It is necessary to work for raising awareness about the importance and need for education about principles of scientific communication and fair allocation of authorship, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education in the scientific community, especially young researchers and students, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud, including pathology of authorship.
A Primer on the Responsibilities and Abuses of Scientific Authorship
Public Health Nursing, 2010
Authorship is the coin of the academic realm. Authors receive public credit for contributing to the social good. They accrue substantial professional and personal rewards in the form of promotion, tenure, and salary. Having undergone expert peer review of their work, they enjoy a reputation for thoughtfulness, truthfulness, and trustworthiness. Thus, there is considerable incentive to become a published author. What is an ''Author''? The word ''author'' comes from the Latin word meaning ''to produce.'' By definition, authors engage in the production, creation, and origination of new material. Scientific authors in nursing and biomedical journals produce original material within a program of inquiry that builds in small steps toward solutions to human health problems. Authors interact within a broad, deep fellowship of other scholars in their fields. This creative process and its rewards come with considerable responsibility.
Authorship Malpractices in Developing Countries
Central Asian Journal of Medical Hypotheses and Ethics
Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship...
The Malversations of Authorship -Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It
Aim: Aim of article was to evaluate knowledge and practice of authorship issues among the academic population in the medical field. Material and methods: Article has an analytical character and includes 69 academic workers (from the medical field, with the status of a regular employee of the Faculty of Medicine or a professional associate) who responded to the survey. Results: Within the total number of respondents in the study, 34.8% of them were added as coauthors, although they did not have any input in the writing process. Even 47.8% of the respondents were under psychological pressure, that they have to add their superiors to the list of authors, though they did not have any contribution at any stage of the article preparation, while 29% of the respondents had a tacit agreement about mutual adding to the author's list, and 36.2% added their superiors to the author's list, in order that the first author would get a permission to publish the article in a certain journal. Conclusion: The relationship between the author, the mentor, the data processing person, the person providing the moral support etc. must be established, and not all of them has a place in the list of authors, they should be given special places at the end of the article, a space for acknowledgements, where these people may be mentioned. The consciousness of the academic community must change for the purpose of the concrete progress of the academic community and the scientific contributions of its members.
Shall We Talk About Authorship?
Ensaio Pesquisa em Educação em Ciências (Belo Horizonte)
The editorial team of Revista Ensaio has been reflecting on the different issues that affect directly the research community in Science Education in Brazil, seeking, through dialogue, to build a space of debate, resistances, changes, in view of our commitment to quality in the production process and communication of research produced in the field. Topics such as open science, inclusive language, collaborative research, plagiarism and training for evaluation, among others, have been the focus of reflections and become central to our actions.
Lung India, 2012
Authorship is a highly sought attribute, as it is associated with recognition for creativity. In addition, it is associated with multiple benefits such as peer recognition, better evaluation and financial gains. These possibilities spur scientists to author articles, but some take recourse to unethical practice of honorary authorships. Another unethical practice is that of ghostwriting. It is a phenomenon wherein individuals who write the articles are not named as authors and are not even acknowledged to be associated with the manuscript. Reputed and renowned scientists, who have not participated in the conduct of the study or in the manuscript preparation, are enrolled by the industry to allow their names to be mentioned as authors. This phenomenon is harmful not only because it suppresses the contribution of ghost-authors but also because the guest "authors" bestow underserved credibility upon an "industry-written" paper. The readers have no way of knowing the bias that may have crept in. The journal editors, institution, and government agencies need to come together to ensure that these malpractices are curbed by employing various measures such as creating awareness amongst authors, academicians, and administrators; enunciating and implementing policies to dissuade unethical behavior, protecting whistle-blowers, and providing punishments to those indulging in malpractices. All of us should remember that if unchecked, these deviant behaviors have the potential to compromise the credibility of scientific research and scientific publications.