1
|
Goddiksen MP, Johansen MW, Armond AC, Clavien C, Hogan L, Kovács N, Merit MT, Olsson IAS, Quinn U, Santos JB, Santos R, Schöpfer C, Varga O, Wall PJ, Sandøe P, Lund TB. "The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0280018. [PMID: 36634045 PMCID: PMC9836317 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mads Paludan Goddiksen
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- * E-mail:
| | | | - Anna Catharina Armond
- Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - Christine Clavien
- Institut Éthique Histoire Humanités, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Linda Hogan
- School of Religion, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Nóra Kovács
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - Marcus Tang Merit
- Institute of Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape, Royal Danish Academy, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - I. Anna S. Olsson
- i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Una Quinn
- School of Ecumenics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Júlio Borlido Santos
- i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Rita Santos
- i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Céline Schöpfer
- Institut Éthique Histoire Humanités, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Orsolya Varga
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - P. J. Wall
- ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Peter Sandøe
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Thomas Bøker Lund
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pruschak G, Hopp C. And the credit goes to … - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0267312. [PMID: 35511807 PMCID: PMC9070929 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267312] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/26/2020] [Accepted: 04/07/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
The proliferation of team-authored academic work has led to the proliferation of two kinds of authorship misconduct: ghost authorship, in which contributors are not listed as authors and honorary authorship, in which non-contributors are listed as authors. Drawing on data from a survey of 2,222 social scientists from around the globe, we study the prevalence of authorship misconduct in the social sciences. Our results show that ghost and honorary authorship occur frequently here and may be driven by social scientists' misconceptions about authorship criteria. Our results show that they frequently deviate from a common point of authorship reference (the ICMJE authorship criteria). On the one hand, they tend to award authorship more broadly to more junior scholars, while on the other hand, they may withhold authorship from senior scholars if those are engaged in collaborations with junior scholars. Authorship misattribution, even if it is based on a misunderstanding of authorship criteria rather than egregious misconduct, alters academic rankings and may constitute a threat to the integrity of science. Based on our findings, we call for journals to implement contribution disclosures and to define authorship criteria more explicitly to guide and inform researchers as to what constitutes authorship in the social sciences. Our results also hold implications for research institutions, universities, and publishers to move beyond authorship-based citation and publication rankings in hiring and tenure processes and instead to focus explicitly on contributions in team-authored publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Gernot Pruschak
- TIME Research Area, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
- Department of Business Decisions and Analytics, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
- Institute for Applied Data Science & Finance, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Christian Hopp
- TIME Research Area, RWTH Aachen University, Aachen, Germany
- Institute for Applied Data Science & Finance, Bern University of Applied Sciences, Bern, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Evidence-based Human and Social Sciences: Forschungsunterstützung durch systematische Literaturrecherche in den Human- und Sozialwissenschaften. BIBLIOTHEK FORSCHUNG UND PRAXIS 2021. [DOI: 10.1515/bfp-2020-0117] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Zusammenfassung
Dieser Artikel möchte für die wachsende Bedeutung von systematischen Übersichtsarbeiten in den Human- und Sozialwissenschaften und die diversen Möglichkeiten der Unterstützung solcher Studien von bibliothekarischer Seite sensibilisieren. Er schildert die Entwicklung systematischer Übersichtsarbeiten in den letzten zehn Jahren, analysiert, welche Rollen dabei Fachreferent*innen bzw. Information Specialists zufallen können und gibt Empfehlungen, welchen konkreten Beitrag die Berufsgruppe der wissenschaftlichen Bibliothekar*innen für solche Forschungsprojekte leisten kann.
Collapse
|
5
|
Hesselmann F, Schendzielorz C, Sorgatz N. Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices. RESEARCH EVALUATION 2021. [DOI: 10.1093/reseval/rvab003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/13/2022]
Abstract
Abstract
Academic publishing is undergoing profound changes that shape the conditions of knowledge production and the way research is communicated, prompting a lively debate on how the various activities of those involved can be adequately acknowledged in publications. This contribution aims to empirically examine the relationship between authorship regulations in journal policies, the disciplinary variance in authorship practice and larger concepts of academic authorship. Analyzing (1) editorial policies and (2) data from an interdisciplinary survey of scientists, we examine to what extent disciplinary variances are reflected in the policies as well as in researchers' individual understandings. Here we find that the regulation of authorship qua policies is primarily effected at the level of the publishers. Although considerable disciplinary variations of journal policies are sometimes suggested in the literature, we find only minor differences in authorship criteria. The survey data however show that researchers' understandings of authorship exhibit significant, discipline-specific differences, as well as differences related to the characteristics of the research practice. It hence becomes clear that discipline-specific conditions of knowledge production with the resulting differences in authorship practices are hardly reflected in authorship policies. We conclude that the regulatory ambitions of authorship policies mostly focus on the prevention and elimination of deficits in the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Thus, it seems questionable whether authorship policies in their current form are suitable instruments for mediating between diverse authorship practices and normative ideals of legitimate authorship.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Felicitas Hesselmann
- German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, Schuetzenstr. 6a, 10117 Berlin
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Universitätsstr. 3b, 10117 Berlin
| | - Cornelia Schendzielorz
- German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, Schuetzenstr. 6a, 10117 Berlin
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Universitätsstr. 3b, 10117 Berlin
| | - Nikita Sorgatz
- German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies, Schuetzenstr. 6a, 10117 Berlin
- Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Universitätsstr. 3b, 10117 Berlin
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Rasmussen LM, Williams CE, Hausfeld MM, Banks GC, Davis BC. Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2020; 26:3393-3413. [PMID: 33210194 PMCID: PMC7755643 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-020-00273-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/04/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lisa M. Rasmussen
- Department of Philosophy and Graduate School Faculty Fellow, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223 USA
| | - Courtney E. Williams
- Department of Management, University of Toledo, 2801 Bancroft St., Toledo, OH 43606 USA
| | - Mary M. Hausfeld
- Department of Management, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223 USA
| | - George C. Banks
- Department of Management, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC 28223 USA
| | - Bailey C. Davis
- Department of Ethics and Compliance, Memorial Health University Medical Center, 4700 Waters Ave, Savannah, GA 31404 USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Aliukonis V, Poškutė M, Gefenas E. Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship. MEDICINA (KAUNAS, LITHUANIA) 2020; 56:E123. [PMID: 32178434 PMCID: PMC7142498 DOI: 10.3390/medicina56030123] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2020] [Revised: 03/02/2020] [Accepted: 03/06/2020] [Indexed: 11/16/2022]
Abstract
Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Eugenijus Gefenas
- Centre for Health Ethics, Law and History, Institute of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, 03101 Vilnius, Lithuania; (V.A.); (M.P.)
| |
Collapse
|