The case of equal co-authorship in scientific publications (original) (raw)
Related papers
Equity in authorship: a strategy for assigning credit when publishing
Social science & medicine (1982), 1994
Existing guidelines for authorship are lacking in specific detail, differ from discipline to discipline, implicitly or explicitly contradict each other on many issues, and are therefore open to varying interpretation by different people. In order to encourage and facilitate consistency and fair acknowledgement of contributions to publications, a Points System was developed for evaluating 13 categories of contribution by individuals. The system is intended for use in determining who should be listed as authors, and in what sequence names should appear by enabling points "earned" through contribution to be then "spent" in purchasing authorship. The system is based on ratings of perceived values of the contribution types obtained from the staff of a multi-disciplinary research centre, but it can readily be adapted to the local needs and values of any research group. The system is likely to be particularly useful in relation to complex research projects and programs,...
The nature of co-authorship: a note on recognition sharing and scientific argumentation
Synthese, 2014
Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com".
In academia, authorship on publications confers merit as well as responsibility. The respective disciplines adhere to their "typical" authorship practices: individuals may be named in alphabetical order (e.g. in economics, mathematics), ranked in decreasing level of contribution (e.g. biomedical sciences) or the leadership role may be listed last (e.g. laboratory sciences). However, there is no specific, generally accepted guidance regarding authorship distribution in multidisciplinary teams, something that can lead to significant tensions and even conflict. Using Scanlon's Contractualism as a basis, I propose a conceptual foundation for the ethical distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary teams; it features four relevant principles: desert, just recognition, transparency, and collegiality. These principles can serve in the development of a practical framework to support ethical and non-arbitrary authorship distribution, which hopefully would help reduce confusion and conflict, promote agreement and contribute to synergy in multidisciplinary collaborative research.
Learned Publishing, 2019
• The structured Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) taxonomy, introduced in 2014, is now used in over 120 journals and set to grow substantially in the next couple of years. • CRediT responds to calls for greater transparency and recognition of author contributions and is increasingly being used to investigate authorship. • Whilst initially implemented in the life sciences, identification of contributorship is increasingly being seen as important in all disciplines. INTRODUCTION: THE EMERGENCE OF CREDIT In 2015, Learned Publishing published an article introducing the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT), in which the authors proposed a shift to a more holistic way for authors to describe their contributions to published scholarly output, moving beyond a static concept of authorship. Specifically, the paper recommended the use of a simple, but comprehensive, taxonomy that could be used by authors when submitting an article for publication to allow the range and nature of contributions to scholarly published output to be captured transparently and in a structured format (Brand, Allen, Altman, Hlava, & Scott, 2015). The case for a shift to contribution to complement (or replace) the concept of authorship emerged following increasing dissatisfaction with established bibliographic conventions for describing and listing authors on scholarly outputs, which have become outdated and unable to convey the diversity of contributions that researchers make to published work today (Rennie, Yank, & Emanuel, 1997). The emergence of the 'impact agenda' for research, and the importance of published research works as currency for researchers to support academic research career progression, makes it vitally important that any information about specific and valuable contributions to research are visible and verifiable (Dance, 2012). Providing accessible information about contribution is also a way to address a number of well-described problems with author lists and orders, among the most important: to provide more accountability to prevent questionable, guest, and 'ghost' authorship on research articles (Rennie & Flanagin, 1994); to provide a way to make sense of the increasing number of authors listed in research articles in many areas of science; and to provide visibility to early career researcher contributions where a 'first author' paper may be elusive. Furthermore, in fact, there are no
Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations
10.3390/publications6030037, 2018
Increasing specialization, changes in the institutional incentives for publication, and a host of other reasons have brought about a marked trend towards co-authored articles among researchers. These changes have impacted Science and Technology (S&T) policies worldwide. Co-authorship is often considered to be a reliable proxy for assessing research collaborations at micro, meso, and macro levels. Although co-authorship in a scholarly publication brings numerous benefits to the participating authors, it has also given rise to issues of publication integrity, such as ghost authorships and honorary authorships. The code of conduct of bodies such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) make it clear that only those who have significantly contributed to the study should be on the authorship list. Those who have contributed little have to be appropriately acknowledged in footnotes or in the acknowledgement section. However, these principles are sometimes transgressed, and a complete solution still remains elusive. Keywords Author Keywords:co-authorship; scholarly publications; research collaborations; ethics; APA; ICMJE KeyWords Plus:SCIENTIFIC COLLABORATION; SCIENCE; PUBLICATIONS; CREDIT; PREVALENCE; PATTERNS; ARTICLES; HONORARY; NETWORK; ORDER
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.
In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we argue that the names of authors accompanying journal articles should provide insight into who is responsible for which contributions, a process should exist to confirm that the list is complete, clearly articulated standards should establish whether and when the contributions of an individual justify authorship credit, and those involved in the generation of scientific knowledge should follow these best practices. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and encourage authors to use the digital persistent identifier ORCID. Furthermore, we suggest that research institutions have regular open conversations on authorship criteria a...
Scientific authorshipPart 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines
Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research, 2005
One challenge for most scientists is avoiding and resolving issues that center around authorship and the publishing of scientific manuscripts. While trying to place the research in proper context, impart new knowledge, follow proper guidelines, and publish in the most appropriate journal, the scientist often must deal with multi-collaborator issues like authorship allocation, trust and dependence, and resolution of publication conflicts. Most guidelines regarding publications, commentaries, and editorials have evolved from the ranks of editors in an effort to diminish the issues that faced them as editors. For example, the Ingelfinger rule attempts to prevent duplicate publications of the same study. This paper provides a historical overview of commonly encountered scientific authorship issues, a comparison of opinions on these issues, and the influence of various organizations and guidelines in regards to these issues. For example, a number of organizations provide guidelines for author allocation; however, a comparison shows that these guidelines differ on who should be an author, rules for ordering authors, and the level of responsibility for coauthors. Needs that emerge from this review are (a) a need for more controlled studies on authorship issues, (b) an increased awareness and a buy-in to consensus views by non-editor groups, e.g., managers, authors, reviewers, and scientific societies, and (c) a need for editors to express a greater understanding of authors' dilemmas and to exhibit greater flexibility. Also needed are occasions (e.g., an international congress) when editors and others (managers, authors, etc.) can directly exchange views, develop consensus approaches and solutions, and seek agreement on how to resolve authorship issues. Open dialogue is healthy, and it is essential for scientific integrity to be protected so that younger scientists can confidently follow the lead of their predecessors. Published by Elsevier B.V.