Factors influencing pharmacy faculty behavior, perceptions, and challenges with determining authorship credit

A systematic scoping review of the ethics of Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies

Contributor Role Ontologies and Taxonomies (CROTs) provide a standard list of roles to specify individual contributions to research. CROTs most common application has been their inclusion alongside author bylines in scholarly publications. With the recent uptake of CROTs among publishers -particularly the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT)- some have anticipated a positive impact on ethical issues regarding the attribution of credit and responsibilities, but others have voiced concerns about CROTs shortcomings and ways they could be misunderstood or have unintended consequences. Since these discussions have never been consolidated, this review collated and explored published viewpoints about the ethics of CROTs. After searching Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, 30 papers met the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. We identified eight themes and 20 specific issues related to the ethics of CROTs and provided four recommendations for CROT developers, custodians, or others seeking to use CROTs in their workflows, policy and practice: 1) Compile comprehensive instructions that explain how CROTs should be used; 2) Improve the coherence of used terms, 3) Translate roles in languages other than English, 4) Communicate a clear vision about future development plans and be transparent about CROTs' strengths and weaknesses. We conclude that CROTs are not the panacea for unethical attributions and should be complemented with initiatives that support social and infrastructural transformation of scholarly publications.

Managing the "Three Cs" of Academic Literature Authorship: Contributions, Credit, and Conflict

Dissemination of information through publications is central to academic research, as well as professional advancement. Although seemingly a straightforward endeavor, publication authorship may present challenges. Although the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors defines authorship based on 4 required criteria, contemporary interdisciplinary collaborations can complicate authorship determinations. However, communication that occurs early and frequently in the research and writing process can help to prevent or mitigate potential conflicts, while a process for defining authorship contributions can aid in awarding proper credit. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) defines 14 essential roles of manuscript authors that can be utilized to characterize individual author contributions toward any given publication. This information is useful for academic administrators when evaluating contributors of faculty during promotion and tenure decisions. In the era of collaborative scientific, clinical, and pedagogical scholarship, providing faculty development, including statements of credit in the published work, and developing institutional systems to capture and assess contributions are key.

Trends in authorship characteristics and collaboration in pharmacy practice publications: 2011-2020

BACKGROUND

Research and scholarly publications are core expectations in academia that often require collaboration. While the number of authors per document (NAPD) has increased in every discipline, co-authorship culture and collaboration patterns vary among disciplines and countries.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the trends in the patterns and characteristics of authorship and collaborations in United States' pharmacy practice faculty publications from 2011 to 2020.

METHODS

Seven pharmacy practice journals were selected based on previous studies and data from Scimago Journal and Country Rank. Articles and reviews (document types) published during the decade were obtained from the Scopus database. Data cleaning and analysis were done using Microsoft Excel, R programming language packages, and VOSviewer. The Mann-Kendall trend test was used to determine the presence of (positive/negative) monotonic trends.

RESULTS

Eight thousand and fifty-nine documents published in the selected journals (82.7% articles; 17.3% reviews) by 18,575 unique authors during the decade were analyzed. In most documents (69.3-78.7%), senior/corresponding authors were first authors. There were statistically significant upward trends in the mean NAPD (3.8 ± 2.2 to 4.7 ± 2.4), median NAPD, and related bibliometric indices (degree of collaboration, collaborative index, and collaborative coefficient). Conversely, productivity (document per unique author) significantly trended downward and had a strong, negative correlation with mean NAPD. The proportion of one-author publications also trended downward (12.2%-3.6%). Evidence also supports a downward trend in institutional collaboration and an upward trend in international collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

The assumption that last authors are senior authors does not hold in pharmacy practice publications. The increase in NAPD is not considered as authorship inflation, but rather an authorship "upcreep" that is driven by a survival strategy to publish together, predominantly within institutions rather than across institutions or countries. Therefore, faculty publication benchmarks should be crafted to mitigate the inverse relationship between collaboration and productivity, without discouraging collaboration.