Exploring researchers' perspectives on authorship decision making

Demonstrating causality, bestowing honours, and contributing to the arms race: Threats to the sustainability of HPE research

As the field of health professions education (HPE) continues to evolve, it is necessary to occasionally pause and reflect on the potential effects and outcomes of our research practices. While future-casting does not guarantee that impending negative consequences will be evaded, the exercise can help us avoid pitfalls. In this paper, we reflect on two terms that have taken hold as powerful idols in HPE research that stand above questioning and apart from critique: patient outcomes and productivity. We argue that these terms, and the ways of thinking they uphold, threaten the sustainability of HPE research-one at the level of the community and one at the level of the scholar. First, we suggest that HPE research's history of endorsing a linear and causal association ethos has driven its quest to connect education to patient outcomes. To ensure the sustainability of HPE scholarship, we must deconstruct and disempower patient outcomes as one of HPE's god-terms, as the pinnacle goal of educational activities. To be sustained, HPE research needs to value all of its contributions equally. A second god-term is productivity; it impairs the sustainability of the careers of individual researchers. Problems of honorary authorship, research output expectations, and comparisons with other fields have constructed a space where only scholars with sufficient privilege can prevail. If productivity persists as a god-term, the field of HPE research could decay into a space where new scholars are silenced-not because they fail to make important contributions, but because access is restricted by existing research metrics. These are two of many god-terms threatening the sustainability of HPE research. By highlighting patient outcomes and productivity and by acknowledging our own participation in propagating them, we hope to encourage others to recognize how our collective choices threaten the sustainability of our field.

Faculty and Student Perceptions of Unauthorized Collaborations in the Preclinical Curriculum: Student or System Failure?

PURPOSE

Unauthorized collaboration among medical students, including the unauthorized provision of assistance and sharing of curricular and assessment materials, is a reported problem. While many faculty view such sharing as academic dishonesty, students do not always perceive these behaviors as problematic. With the trend toward more small-group and team-based learning and the proliferation of resource-sharing and online study aids, collaboration and sharing may have become a student norm. This multi-institutional, qualitative study examined faculty and student perceptions of and student motivations for unauthorized collaboration.

METHOD

Using a constructivist approach, the authors conducted scenario-prompted semistructured interviews with faculty and students in the preclinical curriculum. Participants were asked to reflect on scenarios of unauthorized collaboration and discuss their perceptions of student motivation and the influence of personal or environmental factors. The authors performed inductive thematic analysis of the interview transcripts using open and axial coding followed by abstraction and synthesis of themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-one faculty and 16 students across 3 institutions were interviewed in 2021. There was variation in perceptions among faculty and among students, but little variation between faculty and students. Both participant groups identified the same 3 areas of tension/themes: faculty/curriculum goals vs student goals, inherent character traits vs modifiable behavioral states, and student relationships with their peer group vs their relationships with the medical education system. Student behaviors were perceived to be influenced by their environment and motivated by the desire to help peers. Participants suggested cultivating trust between students and the education system, environmental interventions, and educating students about acceptable and unacceptable behaviors to prevent unauthorized collaboration.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the various tensions and positive motivations behind unauthorized collaborations, institutions should consider explicitly preparing students to make thoughtful decisions when faced with competing priorities in addition to developing mitigation strategies that address the environment and its interactions with students.

I, we and they: A linguistic and narrative exploration of the authorship process

INTRODUCTION

While authorship plays a powerful role in the academy, research indicates many authors engage in questionable practices like honorary authorship. This suggests that authorship may be a contested space where individuals must exercise agency-a dynamic and emergent process, embedded in context-to negotiate potentially conflicting norms among published criteria, disciplines and informal practices. This study explores how authors narrate their own and others' agency in making authorship decisions.

METHOD

We conducted a mixed-methods analysis of 24 first authors' accounts of authorship decisions on a recent multi-author paper. Authors included 14 females and 10 males in health professions education (HPE) from U.S. and Canadian institutions (10 assistant, 6 associate and 8 full professors). Analysis took place in three phases: (1) linguistic analysis of grammatical structures shown to be associated with agency (coding for main clause subjects and verb types); (2) narrative analysis to create a 'moral' and 'title' for each account; and (3) dialectic integration of (1) and (2).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics suggested that female participants used we subjects and material verbs (of doing) more than men and that full professors used relational verbs (of being and having) more than assistant and associate. Three broad types of agency were narrated: distributed (n = 15 participants), focusing on how resources and work were spread across team members; individual (n = 6), focusing on the first author's action; and collaborative (n = 3), focusing on group actions. These three types of agency contained four subtypes, e.g. supported, contested, task-based and negotiated.

DISCUSSION

This study highlights the complex and emergent nature of agency narrated by authors when making authorship decisions. Published criteria offer us starting point-the stated rules of the authorship game; this paper offers us a next step-the enacted and narrated approach to the game.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

Introduction

Authors of knowledge syntheses make many subjective decisions during their review process. Those decisions, which are guided in part by author characteristics, can impact the conduct and conclusions of knowledge syntheses, which assimilate much of the evidence base in medical education. To better understand the evidence base, this study describes the characteristics of knowledge synthesis authors, focusing on gender, geography, and institution.

Methods

In 2020, the authors conducted meta-research to examine authors of 963 knowledge syntheses published between 1999 and 2019 in 14 core medical education journals.

Results

The authors identified 4,110 manuscript authors across all authorship positions. On average there were 4.3 authors per knowledge synthesis (SD = 2.51, Median = 4, Range = 1–22); 79 knowledge syntheses (8%) were single-author publications. Over time, the average number of authors per synthesis increased (M = 1.80 in 1999; M = 5.34 in 2019). Knowledge syntheses were authored by slightly more females (n = 2047; 50.5%) than males (n = 2005; 49.5%) across all author positions. Authors listed affiliations in 58 countries, and 58 knowledge syntheses (6%) included authors from low- or middle-income countries. Authors from the United States (n = 366; 38%), Canada (n = 233; 24%), and the United Kingdom (n = 180; 19%) published the most knowledge syntheses. Authors listed affiliation at 617 unique institutions, and first authors represented 362 unique institutions with greatest representation from University of Toronto (n = 55, 6%). Across all authorship positions, the large majority of knowledge syntheses (n = 753; 78%) included authors from institutions ranked in the top 200 globally.

Conclusion

Knowledge synthesis author teams have grown over the past 20 years, and while there is near gender parity across all author positions, authorship has been dominated by North American researchers located at highly ranked institutions. This suggests a potential overrepresentation of certain authors with particular characteristics, which may impact the conduct and conclusions of medical education knowledge syntheses.

CRediT for authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association

To help ensure that authors of articles published in the Journal of the Medical Library Association (JMLA) receive appropriate recognition for their contributions and to make individual author roles more transparent to readers, JMLA articles will begin including Author Contribution statements using the Contributor Role Taxonomy.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Honorary Authorship among Health Care Researchers: Online Cross-sectional Survey Data from the Middle East

One of the core problems of scientific research authorship is honorary authorship. It violates the ethical principle of clear and appropriate assignment of scientific research contributions. The prevalence of honorary authorship worldwide is alarmingly high across various research disciplines. As a result, many academic institutions and publishers were trying to explore ways to overcome this unethical research practice. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommended criteria for authorship as guidance for researchers submitting manuscripts to biomedical Journals. However, despite the ICMJE guidelines, honorary authorship is still significantly present across various health research disciplines. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and knowledge of health care researchers towards honorary authorship according to the ICMJE guidelines across different health care fields in Jordan, which to our knowledge was never explored before. Data from an electronic survey that was distributed among researchers working in different healthcare fields across several major universities in Jordan, revealed that most of the respondents were assistant professors working mainly in the schools of Medicine and Pharmacy. The majority of the respondents (65.5%) were not aware of the ICMJE authorship guidelines. And, around 37% reported the inclusion of an honorary author, in which the most common non-authorship task reported by 73% of the respondents was reviewing the manuscript. Our findings emphasize the need for national academic and research institutions to address the issue of authorship in their educational programs and internal policies.

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

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to identify challenges in determining authorship and author order, factors and criteria that influence behavior in determining authorship and author order, and beliefs about authorship and familiarity with guidelines among pharmacy faculty.

METHODS

An online survey was emailed to faculty from three groups of schools categorized by degree of external research funding. Academic discipline and rank, tenure status, years in rank, and gender were queried. Questions were created to determine frequency of authorship justification and author order by specific factors. Power pressures experienced when determining authorship were queried. Three case studies were also included to determine behavior for authorship and authorship order.

RESULTS

A total of 295 usable responses were received (30.2% response rate). A majority of faculty experienced power pressures when determining authorship. Justifying authorship for supervision of student projects and statistical analysis was common. Quantity and quality of contributions were the most common reason for justifying order. Writing substantial sections of an article was ranked the most important component in determining author order. Differences in justifying authorship based on promotion and tenure pressures were noted by academic rank, tenure status, and academic discipline. Familiarity with International Committee for Medical Journal Editors guidelines did not appear to influence behaviors.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a plurality of perceptions and attitudes among faculty in relation to authorship. A model for recognition of contributions is needed. More structured guidance in concert with moral and ethical principles would help to clarify how to best establish authorship and author order.

Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles

Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging on many levels. Here we discuss ethical, social, and technical challenges to the concept of authorship that may impede the recognition of contributions to a scholarly work. Recent work in the field of authorship shows that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may address these challenges. Recent efforts to enable better recognition of contributions to scholarship include the development of the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO), which extends the CRediT taxonomy and can be used in information systems for structuring contributions. We also introduce the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information. Finally, requirements for the adoption of a contributorship-based approach are discussed.