On the extinction of the single-authored paper: The causes and consequences of increasingly collaborative applied ecological research

Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this inquiry was to explore the nexus between authorship attribution in medical literature and accountability for scientific impropriety while assessing the influence of authorial multiplicity on the severity of sanctions imposed.

METHODS

Probit regression models were employed to scrutinize the impact of authorship on assuming accountability for scientific misconduct, and unordered multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine the influence of authorship and the number of bylines on the severity of punitive measures.

RESULTS

First authors and corresponding authors were significantly more likely to be liable for scientific misconduct than other authors and were more likely to be penalized particularly severely. Furthermore, a negative correlation was observed between the number of authors' affiliations and the severity of punitive measures.

CONCLUSION

Authorship exerts a pronounced influence on the attribution of accountability in scientific research misconduct, particularly evident in the heightened risk of severe penalties confronting first and corresponding authors owing to their principal roles. Hence, scientific research institutions and journals must delineate authorship specifications meticulously, ascertain authors' contributions judiciously, bolster initiatives aimed at fostering scientific research integrity, and uphold an environment conducive for robust scientific inquiry.

Gender differences in animal cognition science

Women's representation in science is increasing steadily, with some fields closing gender parity in terms of participation and scientific output. Animal cognition appears to fall into that category. Our current analysis of gender author balance (women versus men) in 600 animal cognition papers supported parity in many aspects, but also revealed some remaining disparities. Women animal cognition scientists often held first authorship positions (58% of the studies), received similar numbers of citations, and published in equally high impact factor journals as men. Women were still under represented in last-author position, which often reflects seniority status (37% of last authors were women). There were interesting results when we considered the gender of teams (of two or more authors): all-women author teams were the minority in our dataset and received on average fewer citations than all men or mixed author teams, regardless of the quality of the journal (as measured by the journal's impact factor). Women more often focussed on mammals, whereas men more often focussed on fish, both as first authors and as same-gender teams. Men, as first author or in men-only teams, restricted their research more often to organisms of a single sex, compared to women, as first author and as members of a team. Our study suggests that there are many indices of the significant contribution of both women and men scientists in animal cognition, although some gender biases may remain.

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.

A machine learning approach to quantify gender bias in collaboration practices of mathematicians

Collaboration practices have been shown to be crucial determinants of scientific careers. We examine the effect of gender on coauthorship-based collaboration in mathematics, a discipline in which women continue to be underrepresented, especially in higher academic positions. We focus on two key aspects of scientific collaboration-the number of different coauthors and the number of single authorships. A higher number of coauthors has a positive effect on, e.g., the number of citations and productivity, while single authorships, for example, serve as evidence of scientific maturity and help to send a clear signal of one's proficiency to the community. Using machine learning-based methods, we show that collaboration networks of female mathematicians are slightly larger than those of their male colleagues when potential confounders such as seniority or total number of publications are controlled, while they author significantly fewer papers on their own. This confirms previous descriptive explorations and provides more precise models for the role of gender in collaboration in mathematics.

The Productivity Puzzle in Invasion Science: Declining but Persisting Gender Imbalances in Research Performance

We analyzed 27,234 publications published since the rise of the field of invasion science in 1980 to evaluate the presence of gender differences in research productivity, the extent of collaboration, and the research impact of those differences. Our analysis revealed significantly fewer female than male authored publications, both per capita and as a group, and the underrepresentation of women as first and single authors persists despite improvements in the gender gap. At the current rate of increase, gender parity in first authorship will not be achieved until 2100, and men will continue to constitute the principal voice of first or single authors in invasion science. Women collaborate with fewer coauthors and are cited less frequently than men, on average, which may influence recruitment and retention to more senior academic positions. These gender disparities in this aspect of research performance suggest that, although the gender gap is lessening, women experience barriers in invasion science.

Forty years of invasion research: more papers, more collaboration...bigger impact?

Scientific research has become increasingly collaborative. We systematically reviewed invasion science literature published between 1980 and 2020 and catalogued in Clarivate Analytics Web of Science to examine patterns of authorship and the relationship between co-authorship and annual citation rates. This study analysed 27,234 publications across 1,218 journals and demonstrated that, as the number of publications in invasion science has exponentially increased, the number of authors publishing per year and the average number of authors per paper have also increased. The rising number of authors per paper coincides with a marked decline of single-authored publications; approximately 92% of publications in this dataset were multi-authored, with single-authored papers comprising less than 4% of all papers published in 2020. The increase in multi-authored papers is likely driven by multiple factors, including the widespread perception that collaboration increases scientific quality. The number of authors is positively correlated with perceived research impact; papers with two or more authors produce research that is more frequently cited compared to single-authored papers, and papers with five or more authors have annual citation rates almost double that of single-authored papers. The complexity, context-dependence and urgency of biological invasions contributed to the rise of the highly collaborative field of modern invasion science.

Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap

In solo research, scientists compete individually for prestige, sending clear signals about their research ability, avoiding problems in credit allocation, and reducing conflicts about authorship. We examine to what extent male and female scientists differ in their use of solo publishing across various dimensions. This research is the first to comprehensively study the “gender solo research gap” among all internationally visible scientists within a whole national higher education system. We examine the gap through mean “individual solo publishing rates” found in “individual publication portfolios” constructed for each Polish university professor. We use the practical significance/statistical significance difference (based on the effect-size r coefficient) and our analyses indicate that while some gender differences are statistically significant, they have no practical significance. Using a partial effects of fractional logistic regression approach, we estimate the probability of conducting solo research. In none of the models does gender explain the variability of the individual solo publishing rate. The strongest predictor of individual solo publishing rate is the average team size, publishing in STEM fields negatively affects the rate, publishing in male-dominated disciplines positively affects it, and the influence of international collaboration is negative. The gender solo research gap in Poland is much weaker than expected: within a more general trend toward team research and international research, gender differences in solo research are much weaker and less relevant than initially assumed. We use our unique biographical, administrative, publication, and citation database (“Polish Science Observatory”) with metadata on all Polish scientists present in Scopus (N = 25,463) and their 158,743 Scopus-indexed articles published in 2009–2018, including 18,900 solo articles.

Elucidating authorship issues as an element of research quality at Thailand's National Science and Technology Development Agency

Authorship in a scientific publication is an indicator of significant intellectual contribution in scientific work. Regardless of the discipline, it is important for research-related personnel to receive credit and take responsibility for their publications. There are currently several systems of listing authorship that arise from many factors such as research complexity, pressure to obtain funding, hierarchical structure, and promotion. Some of these may unfortunately lead to authorship abuse. Raising awareness and understanding of authorship guidelines can help prevent abuses and disputes. National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) is a national research agency of Thailand with about 2 000 research staff members. The research emphasis of the agency is mainly technology development for application in broad areas, ranging from engineering to medicine, including forensic science. We conducted a survey to identify the level of awareness of NSTDA research staff and their authorship practices. A questionnaire was designed based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines and used to survey 15% of randomly selected NSTDA research staff. Nearly 90% of them responded to the interview. Among the respondents, 60% were not sure about authorship criteria. When presented with the ICMJE criteria, more than 90% agreed with the criteria except for the third one, approval of the final manuscript before submission, 33% of respondents thought that authors are only responsible for their particular contribution. However, nearly 80% agreed that every author is responsible for the integrity of the whole manuscript. These results offered an important foundation for forming a strategy to raise awareness about authorship in NSTDA. Following survey analysis, we organized several seminars and developed learning materials and an authorship guideline to increase the level of awareness of authorship for researchers.

Connected while distant: Networking CUREs across classrooms to create community and empower students

Connections, collaborations, and community are key to the success of individual scientists as well as transformative scientific advances. Intentionally building these components into STEM education can better prepare future generations of researchers. Course-based undergraduate research experiences (CUREs) are a new and fast-growing teaching practice in STEM that can expand opportunities for undergraduate students to gain research skills. Because they engage all students in a course in an authentic research experience focused on a relevant scientific problem, CUREs provide an opportunity to foster community among students while promoting critical thinking skills and positively influencing their identities as scientists. Here, we review CUREs in the biological sciences that were developed as multi-institutional networks, and highlight the benefits gained by both students and instructors through participation in a CURE network. Throughout, we introduce Squirrel-Net, a network of ecology-focused and field-based CUREs that intentionally create connections among students and instructors. Squirrel-Net CUREs can also be scaffolded into the curriculum to form connections between courses, and are easily transitioned to distance-based delivery. Future assessments of networked CUREs like Squirrel-Net will help elucidate how CURE networks create community and how a cultivated research community impacts students' performance, perceptions of science, and sense of belonging. We hypothesize networked CUREs have the potential to create a broader sense of belonging among students and instructors alike, which could result in better science and more confident scientists.

The dominance of big teams in China’s scientific output

Modern science is dominated by scientific productions from teams. A recent finding shows that teams of both large and small sizes are essential in research, prompting us to analyze the extent to which a country’s scientific work is carried out by big or small teams. Here, using over 26 million publications from Web of Science, we find that China’s research output is more dominated by big teams than the rest of the world, which is particularly the case in fields of natural science. Despite the global trend that more papers are written by big teams, China’s drop in small team output is much steeper. As teams in China shift from small to large size, the team diversity that is essential for innovative work does not increase as much as that in other countries. Using the national average as the baseline, we find that the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) supports fewer small teams than the National Science Foundation (NSF) of the United States does, implying that big teams are preferred by grant agencies in China. Our finding provides new insights into the concern of originality and innovation in China, which indicates a need to balance small and big teams.

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration

BACKGROUND

Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.

MAIN BODY

When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals' authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.

CONCLUSION

Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members.