Scientific authorship, pluralism, and practice

Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules

Citizen science (CS) is an umbrella term for research with a significant amount of contributions from volunteers. Those volunteers can occupy a hybrid role, being both 'researcher' and 'subject' at the same time. This has repercussions for questions about responsibility and credit, e.g. pertaining to the issue of authorship. In this paper, we first review some existing guidelines for authorship and their applicability to CS. Second, we assess the claim that the guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), known as 'the Vancouver guidelines', may lead to exclusion of deserving citizen scientists as authors. We maintain that the idea of including citizen scientists as authors is supported by at least two arguments: transparency and fairness. Third, we argue that it might be plausible to include groups as authors in CS. Fourth and finally, we offer a heuristic list of seven recommendations to be considered when deciding about whom to include as an author of a CS publication.

In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer

Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.

Publishing important work that lacks validity or reproducibility - pushing frontiers or corrupting science?

Scientific research requires objectivity, impartiality and stringency. However, scholarly literature is littered with preliminary and explorative findings that lack reproducibility or validity. Some low-quality papers with perceived high impact have become publicly notable. The collective effort of fellow researchers who follow these false leads down blind alleys and impasses is a waste of time and resources, and this is particularly damaging for early career researchers. Furthermore, the lay public might also be affected by socioeconomic repercussions associated with the findings. It is arguable that the nature of scientific research is such that its frontiers are moved and shaped by cycles of published claims inducing in turn rounds of validation by others. Using recent example cases of room-temperature superconducting materials research, I argue instead that publication of perceptibly important or spectacular claims that lack reproducibility or validity is epistemically and socially irresponsible. This is even more so if authors refuse to share research materials and raw data for verification by others. Such acts do not advance, but would instead corrupt science, and should be prohibited by consensual governing rules on material and data sharing within the research community, with malpractices appropriately sanctioned.

Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study

Authorship can be a source of tension on research teams, in academic/industry collaborations, and between mentors/mentees. Authorship misconduct is prevalent among biomedical researchers, and disputes about authorship can generate tensions that have the potential to disrupt professional relationships and damage careers. Early-career researchers may experience particular challenges navigating authorship both because of inexperience and power differentials; in effect, they lack the language and confidence to have these conversations and may feel unwilling to challenge the status quo. The authors implemented an Authorship Agreement for use when collaborating on a manuscript and hypothesized that using this agreement would reduce authorship tensions and speed time to manuscript submission by helping early-career investigators manage authorship conversations more effectively. The authors surveyed trainees (n = 65) on the prevalence of authorship-related tensions and compared the results from the first survey in 2017 to the final survey in 2020. The decrease in tensions around meeting deadlines was significant (z = 2.59, p = 0.010). The authors believe the effect of an Authorship Agreement on authorship-related tensions has not previously been investigated. This work extends what is known about the prevalence of commonly cited authorship tensions, and provides evidence of the effectiveness of steps that can be taken to alleviate them.

The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process

Authorship determination on a research article remains a largely subjective process. Existing guidelines on authorship taxonomy lack objectivity and are more useful in determining who deserves authorship rather than determining the order of authors. To promote best practices in authorship taxonomy, we developed an authorship rubric that provides a fair, objective, and transparent means of crediting authorship. We christened this tool the "CalculAuthor". The following steps are to be undertaken to create a scoring system based on the requirements of the projects: determining creditable criteria, assigning credit weightages, deciding levels of contribution, determining each author's contribution, calculating authorship scores and ranking. These must be performed by or in close collaboration with the primary investigator (PI), with conflicts being resolved at the PI's discretion. All team members should be informed about the authorship determination process early in the project and their agreement regarding its use must be obtained. While the CalculAuthor was developed to be used in medical research, its customizability enables it to be employed in any field of academia. We recommend that the CalculAuthor be piloted within institutions before its mainstream adoption, and any institution-specific factors should be considered to make the process more efficient and suitable.

"Technical" Contributors and Authorship Distribution in Health Science

In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.

Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted

In the last 20 years, there has been a sharp increase in the incidence of retractions of articles published in scientific journals, the majority of which are due to research misconduct. In some cases, researchers have revised and republished articles that were retracted due to misconduct, which raises some novel questions concerning authorship. Suppose that an article is retracted because one of the authors fabricated or falsified some data, but the researchers decide to salvage the useable data, make appropriate revisions, and resubmit the article for publication. If the person who committed misconduct has made a significant contribution to the research reported in the revised paper, should they be named as an author to recognize this contribution or should they be denied authorship because they committed misconduct? This is a challenging issue because it involves the confluence of two research ethics domains that are usually dealt with separately, i.e., resolution of authorship disputes and adjudication of misconduct findings, as well as potential conflicts among norms that underlie authorship practices and misconduct adjudication. In this paper, we (1) describe some actual cases involving articles that were retracted for misconduct and republished; (2) review policies from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Committee on Publication Ethics, and top fifteen biomedical journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for cases like these; and (3) analyze the ethical and policy issues that may arise in these situations.

How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone's Research Contributions Make It into the Paper

While much of the scholarly work on ethics relating to academic authorship examines the fair distribution of authorship credit, none has yet examined situations where a researcher contributes significantly to the project, but whose contributions do not make it into the final manuscript. Such a scenario is commonplace in collaborative research settings in many disciplines and may occur for a number of reasons, such as excluding research in order to provide the paper with a clearer focus, tell a particular story, or exclude negative results that do not fit the hypothesis. Our concern in this paper is less about the reasons for including or excluding data from a paper and more about distributing credit in this type of scenario. In particular, we argue that the notion 'substantial contribution', which is part of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, is ambiguous and that we should ask whether it concerns what ends up in the paper or what is a substantial contribution to the research process leading up to the paper. We then argue, based on the principles of fairness, due credit, and ensuring transparency and accountability in research, that the latter interpretation is more plausible from a research ethics point of view. We conclude that the ICMJE and other organizations interested in authorship and publication ethics should consider including guidance on authorship attribution in situations where researchers contribute significantly to the research process leading up to a specific paper, but where their contribution is finally omitted.

Authorship stories panel discussion: Fostering ethical authorship by cultivating a growth mindset

Because peer review publication is essential for academic advancement across scientific fields, when authorship is wrongly attributed the consequences can be profound, particularly for junior researchers who are still establishing their professional norms and scientific reputations. Professional societies have published guidelines for authorship, yet authorship dilemmas frequently arise and have harmful consequences for scientific careers. Researchers have noted the complexities of authorship and called for new mechanisms to foster more ethical research cultures within institutions. To address this call, we organized a panel discussion at the Institute for Clinical Research Education at the University of Pittsburgh in which senior faculty members from diverse backgrounds and professional disciplines discussed their own authorship challenges (e.g., renegotiating author order, reconciling inter-professional authorship norms, managing coauthor power differentials) and offered strategies to avoid and/or resolve them. Informed by growth mind-set theory, our storytelling format facilitated an open exchange between senior and junior researchers, situated authorship dilemmas in specific contexts and career stages, and taught researchers how to address authorship challenges not adequately informed by guideline recommendations. Though not empirically assessed, we believe this approach represents a simple, low-cost, and replicable way to cultivate ethical and transparent authorship practices among researchers across scientific fields.

Research ethics courses as a vaccination against a toxic research environment or culture

Hofmann and Holm’s (2019) recent survey on issues of research misconduct with PhD graduates culminated with a notable conclusion by the authors: ‘ Scientific misconduct seems to be an environmental issue as much as a matter of personal integrity’. Here, we re-emphasise the usefulness of an education-based countermeasure against toxic research environments or cultures that promote unethical practices amongst the younger researchers. We posit that an adequately conducted course in research ethics and integrity, with a good dose of case studies and analyses, can function in a manner that is metaphorically akin to vaccination. The training would cultivate the ability to analyse and build confidence in young researchers in making decisions with sound moral reasoning as well as in speaking up or arguing against pressure and coercions into unacceptable behaviour. A sufficiently large number of young researchers exposed to research ethics trainings would essentially provide a research community some degree of lasting herd immunity at its broadest base. Beyond passive immunity, a crop of research ethics-savvy young researchers could also play active and influential roles as role models for others at their level and perhaps even help correct the wayward attitudes of some senior researchers and initiate prompt action from institutional policy makers in a bottom-up manner.

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Survey of equal contributions in biomedical research publications

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,540 researchers concerning their experiences with and attitudes toward the ethics of equal contribution (EC) designations in publications. Over half the respondents (58.3%) said they had been designated as an EC at least once. Although most respondents agreed that EC designations can be a useful way of promoting collaborations (81.7%) or resolving disagreements about authorship order (63.3%), a substantial proportion of respondents (38.1%) regarded these designations as useful but ethically questionable. 31.7% of respondents said EC designations are ethically questionable because ECs are difficult to define or measure and 25.9% said they are ethically questionable because people rarely contribute equally. Most respondents (71.8%) agreed that it is unfair to name two people as ECs when they have not contributed equally and that journals (73.4%), research teams (69.5%), and research institutions (63%) should develop policies concerning EC designations. Views concerning the ethics and policies of EC designations were influenced by the race/ethnicity and position of respondents but not by gender. Researchers who had been designated as ECs were less likely to regard this practice as ethically questionable than those who had not.

Exploring researchers' perspectives on authorship decision making

CONTEXT

Authorship has major implications for researchers' careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers' conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices.

METHODS

A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants' vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers' vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence-based solutions.

Value pluralism in research integrity

Both scientists and society at large have rightfully become increasingly concerned about research integrity in recent decades. In response, codes of conduct for research have been developed and elaborated. We show that these codes contain substantial pluralism. First, there is metaphysical pluralism in that codes include values, norms, and virtues. Second, there is axiological pluralism, because there are different categories of values, norms, and virtues: epistemic, moral, professional, social, and legal. Within and between these different categories, norms can be incommensurable or incompatible. Codes of conduct typically do not specify how to handle situations where different norms pull in different directions. We review some attempts to develop an ordering of different sorts of norm violations based on a common measure for their seriousness. We argue that they all fail to give adequate guidance for resolving cases of incommensurable and conflicting norms. We conclude that value pluralism is inherent to codes of conduct in research integrity. The application of codes needs careful reasoning and judgment together with an intellectually humble attitude that acknowledges the inevitability of value pluralism.

Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories

Authorship is the currency of an academic career for which the number of papers researchers publish demonstrates creativity, productivity, and impact. To discourage coercive authorship practices and inflated publication records, journals require authors to affirm and detail their intellectual contributions but this strategy has been unsuccessful as authorship lists continue to grow. Here, we surveyed close to 6000 of the top cited authors in all science categories with a list of 25 research activities that we adapted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authorship guidelines. Responses varied widely from individuals in the same discipline, same level of experience, and same geographic region. Most researchers agreed with the NIH criteria and grant authorship to individuals who draft the manuscript, analyze and interpret data, and propose ideas. However, thousands of the researchers also value supervision and contributing comments to the manuscript, whereas the NIH recommends discounting these activities when attributing authorship. People value the minutiae of research beyond writing and data reduction: researchers in the humanities value it less than those in pure and applied sciences; individuals from Far East Asia and Middle East and Northern Africa value these activities more than anglophones and northern Europeans. While developing national and international collaborations, researchers must recognize differences in peoples values while assigning authorship.