Self-interestedness in Research Collaboration and its Association with Career Stage and Nature of Collaboration: A Survey of Zimbabwean Researchers

During collaboration in research, it may happen that some researchers become involved in behaviours that reflect so-called 'self-interestedness', which means that they pursue their personal interest or benefit without considering others. This study examined how researchers in Zimbabwe perceive instances of self-interestedness among research collaborators, and how these perceptions differ according to their career stage and the nature of collaboration. An online survey of researchers in Zimbabwe was conducted to gather information about six instances of self-interestedness among research collaborators. The results show that Zimbabwean researchers involved exclusively in national collaboration reported greater degrees of collaborator self-interestedness than Zimbabwean researchers involved in international collaboration. However, early-career researchers and established researchers did not differ significantly regarding their experiences of collaborator self-interestedness. Measures aimed at capacitating research organisations and research teams in developing countries in the African context, to counter collaborator self-interestedness, are recommended.

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.

Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices

Academic publishing is undergoing profound changes that shape the conditions of knowledge production and the way research is communicated, prompting a lively debate on how the various activities of those involved can be adequately acknowledged in publications. This contribution aims to empirically examine the relationship between authorship regulations in journal policies, the disciplinary variance in authorship practice and larger concepts of academic authorship. Analyzing (1) editorial policies and (2) data from an interdisciplinary survey of scientists, we examine to what extent disciplinary variances are reflected in the policies as well as in researchers' individual understandings. Here we find that the regulation of authorship qua policies is primarily effected at the level of the publishers. Although considerable disciplinary variations of journal policies are sometimes suggested in the literature, we find only minor differences in authorship criteria. The survey data however show that researchers' understandings of authorship exhibit significant, discipline-specific differences, as well as differences related to the characteristics of the research practice. It hence becomes clear that discipline-specific conditions of knowledge production with the resulting differences in authorship practices are hardly reflected in authorship policies. We conclude that the regulatory ambitions of authorship policies mostly focus on the prevention and elimination of deficits in the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Thus, it seems questionable whether authorship policies in their current form are suitable instruments for mediating between diverse authorship practices and normative ideals of legitimate authorship.

AUTHORSHIP MALPRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

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.