Time-based changes in authorship trend in research-intensive universities in Malaysia

Considering the fact that publications serve as an important criterion to evaluate the scientific accomplishments of an individual within respective fields in academia, there has been an increasing trend to publish scientific articles whereby multiple authors are defined as primary, co-, or corresponding authors according to the roles performed. This article analyzes the authorship pattern in 4,561 papers (including 60 single-authored papers) from 1990 till 2020 of 94 academics who hold a position as professors and are affiliated with the Faculty of Medicine at three different research universities in Malaysia. Only 708 papers (15.5% of 4,561 papers) were authored by less than three authors. In 3,080 papers (67.5% of 4,561 papers), those academics appeared as coauthors. Using different years as cutoff periods, it was observed that the appearance as coauthor in the papers had steeply risen around the years: 2006, 2007, 2008 and onwards. The increased number of authors in the multi-author papers and the appearance of the selected academics as coauthors reflect the extent of boosting of collaborative research in that period which corresponds to the adoption of the "publish or perish policy" by the Ministry of Higher Education in Malaysia.

Is biomedical research self-correcting? Modelling insights on the persistence of spurious science

The reality that volumes of published biomedical research are not reproducible is an increasingly recognized problem. Spurious results reduce trustworthiness of reported science, increasing research waste. While science should be self-correcting from a philosophical perspective, that in insolation yields no information on efforts required to nullify suspect findings or factors shaping how quickly science may be corrected. There is also a paucity of information on how perverse incentives in the publishing ecosystem favouring novel positive findings over null results shape the ability of published science to self-correct. Knowledge of factors shaping self-correction of science remain obscure, limiting our ability to mitigate harms. This modelling study introduces a simple model to capture dynamics of the publication ecosystem, exploring factors influencing research waste, trustworthiness, corrective effort and time to correction. Results from this work indicate that research waste and corrective effort are highly dependent on field-specific false positive rates and time delays to corrective results to spurious findings are propagated. The model also suggests conditions under which biomedical science is self-correcting and those under which publication of correctives alone cannot stem propagation of untrustworthy results. Finally, this work models a variety of potential mitigation strategies, including researcher- and publisher-driven interventions.

Correlation between journal metrics-based academic evaluation and researchers' ethics

The "publish or perish" approach has become an integral part of an academic's life when seeking positions, striving for promotions, or competing for funding. This approach often hinges on journal-based metrics which push researchers to seek publication in journals indexed in the Web of Science. Due to the pressure to publish a certain number of publications in journals indexed in the Web of Science, researchers might attempt to find a journal with a lower impact factor, i.e., less popular and visible journals in the scientific community. Even more concerning is the fact that researchers might publish their results in predatory journals. This paper analyzes the consequence of introducing a journal indicators-based academic evaluation by analyzing productivity and publication patterns of researchers. Moreover, this paper investigates the correlation between journal-based academic evaluation rules and researchers' ethics. The analysis is based on bibliometric data collected from the Web of Science database. The case study subject is the Serbian research landscape before and after the introduction of a journal metrics-based academic evaluation.

Unethical authorship practices: A qualitative study in Malaysian higher education institutions

INTRODUCTION

To explore academia perceptions and experience with unethical authorship practices in their respective institutions.

METHOD

21 in-depth interviews were carried out.

RESULTS

Our analysis revealed variability in experiences with various types of unethical authorship practices among the interviewees. Second, we found that unethical authorship practices are not so unusual among academia although the exact numbers of incidents are unknown due to the fact that such practices are seldom reported. Third, our interviewees revealed that the culture of 'publish or perish' could be the main contributor to unethical practices of authorship because publication records are the main criteria for researcher's career evaluation besides, others, which are set by the university.

CONCLUSION

It was suggested that the institution must play a proactive role in educating and promoting awareness on authorship guidelines, through education and training, ethical leadership as well as promoting the importance of publication ethics.

Modelling science trustworthiness under publish or perish pressure

Scientific publication is immensely important to the scientific endeavour. There is, however, concern that rewarding scientists chiefly on publication creates a perverse incentive, allowing careless and fraudulent conduct to thrive, compounded by the predisposition of top-tier journals towards novel, positive findings rather than investigations confirming null hypothesis. This potentially compounds a reproducibility crisis in several fields, and risks undermining science and public trust in scientific findings. To date, there has been comparatively little modelling on factors that influence science trustworthiness, despite the importance of quantifying the problem. We present a simple phenomenological model with cohorts of diligent, careless and unethical scientists, with funding allocated by published outputs. This analysis suggests that trustworthiness of published science in a given field is influenced by false positive rate, and pressures for positive results. We find decreasing available funding has negative consequences for resulting trustworthiness, and examine strategies to combat propagation of irreproducible science.

A citation-based, author- and age-normalized, logarithmic index for evaluation of individual researchers independently of publication counts

The use of citation metrics for evaluation of individual researchers has dramatically increased over the last decade. However, currently existing indices either are based on misleading premises or are cumbersome to implement. This leads to poor assessment of researchers and creates dangerous trends in science, such as overproduction of low quality articles. Here we propose an index (namely, the L-index) that does not depend on the number of publications, accounts for different co-author contributions and age of publications, and scales from 0.0 to 9.9. Moreover, it can be calculated with the help of freely available software.

US studies may overestimate effect sizes in softer research

Many biases affect scientific research, causing a waste of resources, posing a threat to human health, and hampering scientific progress. These problems are hypothesized to be worsened by lack of consensus on theories and methods, by selective publication processes, and by career systems too heavily oriented toward productivity, such as those adopted in the United States (US). Here, we extracted 1,174 primary outcomes appearing in 82 meta-analyses published in health-related biological and behavioral research sampled from the Web of Science categories Genetics & Heredity and Psychiatry and measured how individual results deviated from the overall summary effect size within their respective meta-analysis. We found that primary studies whose outcome included behavioral parameters were generally more likely to report extreme effects, and those with a corresponding author based in the US were more likely to deviate in the direction predicted by their experimental hypotheses, particularly when their outcome did not include additional biological parameters. Nonbehavioral studies showed no such "US effect" and were subject mainly to sampling variance and small-study effects, which were stronger for non-US countries. Although this latter finding could be interpreted as a publication bias against non-US authors, the US effect observed in behavioral research is unlikely to be generated by editorial biases. Behavioral studies have lower methodological consensus and higher noise, making US researchers potentially more likely to express an underlying propensity to report strong and significant findings.