1
|
Rivera H. Coercion Authorship: Ubiquitous and Preventable. J Korean Med Sci 2024; 39:e215. [PMID: 39106886 PMCID: PMC11301011 DOI: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e215] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/16/2024] [Accepted: 06/16/2024] [Indexed: 08/09/2024] Open
Abstract
Coercion authorship (CA), typically enforced by principal investigators, has detrimental effects on graduate students, young researchers, and the entire scientific endeavor. Although CA is ubiquitous, its occurrence and major determinants have been mainly explored among graduate students and junior scientists in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark where the ratio of CA ranged from 13 to 40%. In addition to lacking comparable figures, developing countries usually lack institutional plans for promoting integrity and effective deterrents against CA and other malpractices. Hence, universities and research centers therein must publish their authorship policies and implement specific strategies to instruct graduate students, junior scientists, and experienced researchers on integrity, publishing ethics, and responsible authorship. Finally, I remark that the primary responsibility of principal researchers to promote fair authorship practices and discourage unfair ones is even greater when it comes to CA due to the asymmetrical power relationship between senior authors and novice scientists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Horacio Rivera
- Departamento de Biología Molecular y Genómica, Centro Universitario de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Ioannidis JPA, Maniadis Z. Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics. Intern Emerg Med 2024; 19:39-47. [PMID: 37921985 PMCID: PMC10827896 DOI: 10.1007/s11739-023-03447-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/20/2023] [Accepted: 09/26/2023] [Indexed: 11/05/2023]
Abstract
Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- John P A Ioannidis
- Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, SPRC, MSOB X306, 1265 Welch Rd, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
| | - Zacharias Maniadis
- SInnoPSis (Science and Innovation Policy and Studies) Unit, Department of Economics, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
- Department of Economics, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Khalifa A. Losing young researchers in the authorship battle, under-reported casualties. ETHICS, MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 20:100735. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100735] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 09/01/2023]
|
4
|
Valkenburg G, Dix G, Tijdink J, de Rijcke S. Expanding Research Integrity: A Cultural-Practice Perspective. SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS 2021; 27:10. [PMID: 33559767 PMCID: PMC7872949 DOI: 10.1007/s11948-021-00291-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/25/2019] [Accepted: 01/22/2021] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
Research integrity (RI) is usually discussed in terms of responsibilities that individual researchers bear towards the scientific work they conduct, as well as responsibilities that institutions have to enable those individual researchers to do so. In addition to these two bearers of responsibility, a third category often surfaces, which is variably referred to as culture and practice. These notions merit further development beyond a residual category that is to contain everything that is not covered by attributions to individuals and institutions. This paper discusses how thinking in RI can take benefit from more specific ideas on practice and culture. We start by articulating elements of practice and culture, and explore how values central to RI are related to these elements. These insights help identify additional points of intervention for fostering responsible conduct. This helps to build "cultures and practices of research integrity", as it makes clear that specific times and places are connected to specific practices and cultures and should have a place in the debate on Research Integrity. With this conceptual framework, practitioners as well as theorists can avoid using the notions as residual categories that de facto amount to vague, additional burdens of responsibility for the individual.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Govert Valkenburg
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
- Present Address: Department of Interdisciplinary Studies of Culture, Faculty of Humanities, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
| | - Guus Dix
- Center for Higher Education Policy Studies (CHEPS), Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, the Netherlands
| | - Joeri Tijdink
- Department of Ethics, Law and Humanities, Amsterdam University Medical Center, Location VUmc, Amsterdam, Netherlands
- Department of Philosophy, VU University, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Sarah de Rijcke
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Leiden University, Leiden, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Rivera H. AUTHORSHIP MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF MEDICAL HYPOTHESES AND ETHICS 2020. [DOI: 10.47316/cajmhe.2020.1.1.11] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Although the variety of research malpractices in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is similar to those documented in developed nations, authorship misuse and related issues appear to be more prevalent in the former. This article focuses on some authorship-related topics in LMIC, namely authorship disputes, excessive co-authorship and monetary incentives, authorship issues in student-mentor relationships, and authorship patterns in North-South collaborations. Universities and official bodies in LMIC must supervise the integrity of the whole research process, provide instructions on responsible research and authorship, set up the required postgraduate training programs, foster good role models in authorship, and designate an ombudsperson to advice and respond to complaints of researchers, especially students and junior faculty. Lastly, a recent framework that combines descriptive and normative elements and then uses proper metaphors to achieve an ethical definition of authorship useful in international settings is highlighted.
Collapse
|
6
|
Gómez-Ferri J, González-Alcaide G, LLopis-Goig R. Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception. J Informetr 2019. [DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.100980] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
|
7
|
Sharma H, Verma S. Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade. Trop Parasitol 2018; 8:62-69. [PMID: 30693209 PMCID: PMC6329266 DOI: 10.4103/tp.tp_27_18] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 10/23/2018] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Achieving a place in the authorship of published scientific research is a matter of pride and fame associated with creativity, recognition, better evaluation, and financial gains. This had made assigning of authorship in a scientific publication, a complex and challenging issue. Gaining a position in authorship in scientific publications not only prompts or encourages authors to carry out more research but also recourse many of them to the unethical practice of different kinds of authorship abuses. These authorship abuses are done so cleverly and skillfully that neither the journal editors nor the readers of the journals realize that bias had crept in authorship of the publication. This nonstandard act of biased authorship has a tremendous potential to compromise the credibility of scientific research and scientific publications. The present review aims in focusing on issues pertaining to authorship and its misuse in biomedical research. Thus, it can be concluded from this review that new policies, guidelines, and laws should be made by the government agencies in association with journal editors, institution, and government agencies to curb this malpractice by protecting whistleblowers and providing adequate punishment for those who are involved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hunny Sharma
- Department of Public Health Dentistry, Triveni Institute of Dental Sciences, Hospital and Research Centre, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, India
| | - Swati Verma
- Department of Public Health Dentistry, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Kohka, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Breet E, Botha J, Horn L, Swartz L. Academic and Scientific Authorship Practices: A Survey Among South African Researchers. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2018; 13:412-420. [DOI: 10.1177/1556264618789253] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/15/2022]
Abstract
Empirical studies of authorship practices in high-income countries have been conducted, while research on this issue is scarce in low- and middle-income countries. A survey was conducted among South African researchers who have published in peer-reviewed journals, to explore their understanding of and ability to apply academic authorship criteria. A total of 967 researchers participated in the survey; 88% of respondents had knowledge of academic authorship criteria, while only 52% found it easy to apply the criteria. More respondents experienced disagreement regarding who qualifies for coauthorship compared with authorship order (59% vs. 48%). Disagreement was mostly linked to different ways of valuing or measuring contributions. Level of agreement with academic authorship criteria was higher than the perceived ability to apply the criteria.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Jan Botha
- Stellenbosch University, South Africa
| | - Lyn Horn
- University of Cape Town, South Africa
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Helgesson G, Juth N, Schneider J, Lövtrup M, Lynøe N. Misuse of Coauthorship in Medical Theses in Sweden. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2018; 13:402-411. [PMID: 29985088 DOI: 10.1177/1556264618784206] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
The aim of this study was to explore experiences of authorship issues among persons who have recently received their doctoral degree in medicine in Sweden. A survey was mailed to all who received their PhD at a medical faculty at a Swedish university the first half of 2016. Questions concerned experiences of violations of the first three authorship criteria in the Vancouver rules and of misuse of authorship order in the articles of their thesis, and the respondents' attitudes to these matters. The questionnaire was returned by 285 respondents (68%). According to the majority (53%), the Vancouver rules were not fully respected in the articles of their thesis. A vast majority (97%) found it important that authorship issues are handled correctly, but only 19% responded that their department has a clear and consistently applied policy. We conclude that authorship guidelines are frequently disrespected at medical faculties in Sweden. The universities seem to provide limited support on authorship issues.
Collapse
|