Responsible Conduct of Research and Ethical Publishing Practices: A Proposal to Resolve ‘Authorship Disputes’ over Multi-Author Paper Publication
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors proposed a framework that would help to resolve authorship disputes over multi-author paper publication and proposed a qualitative methodology that subsumes descriptive, evaluative, and interpretative approaches to answer these questions.
Abstract: Responsible conduct of research and ethical publishing practices are debatable issues in the higher education literature. The literature suggests that ‘authorship disputes’ are associated with multi-author paper publication and linked to ethical publishing practices. A few research studies argue authorship matters of a multi-author paper publication, but do not explain how to arrange author list meaningfully in a multi-author paper. How is a principal author of a multi-author paper to be decided? The literature also does not clarify whether language editor(s) could claim authorship for a research paper publication? The paper adopts qualitative methodology that subsumes descriptive, evaluative, and interpretative approaches to answer these questions. While answering these questions, the paper critically examines ‘authorship disputes’ and ‘types of authorship’ relating to research paper publication practices. At the end, the paper proposes a framework that would help to resolve authorship disputes over multi-author paper publication.
Citations
More filters
TL;DR: In this paper , a corpus-based quantitative analyses were conducted on the incidence of the various elements of the Interest frame, including discipline and gender, in academic writing and text-based interviews were conducted with 16 disciplinary informants to explore considerations behind their use of interest markers.
01 Jan 2022
01 Jan 2023
References
More filters
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present a review of various types of editing services, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship.
Abstract: Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines’ criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the “editing service”, so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, “editing services” often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by “editing services” should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end “editing services”. In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.
21 citations
19 citations
[...]
TL;DR: “The one thing that is wrong with the authorship system is when someone becomes an author on a paper to which they have contributed nothing, in other words, honorary authorship,” said Iain Mattaj.
Abstract: Authorship on scientific publications has become the currency of modern science and a measure of a scientist's participation in the international community. The number of papers a scientist publishes, the journals in which they are published and the position of a scientist's name on the list of authors are all crucial when it comes to promotions, funding and employment decisions. Nevertheless, the attribution of authorship in contemporary academic science has become an increasingly delicate issue. Obvious shortcomings in the system and an inability to react to new developments in science, such as larger research groups and collaborations, have led scientists, editors and science administrators to debate whether the present authorship system should be modified and how best it should operate.
> Authorship is the fulfilment of a responsibility
Furthermore, the need to produce a long list of publications when applying for positions or funding has further contributed to an inflation in the number of contributors. If group or department leaders put the names of their junior scientists on a paper to give them an advantage in the ‘rat race’ for jobs and money, this is certainly generous, but it ultimately dilutes the work of others. “I think that the one thing that is wrong with the authorship system is when someone becomes an author on a paper to which they have contributed nothing, in other words, honorary authorship,” said Iain Mattaj, Scientific Director of the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Heidelberg, Germany) and Executive Editor of The EMBO Journal .
> The inflation in authorship is associated with the extensive collaborative dimension that science has assumed
This leaves the scientific community with the question of who qualifies as an author. Unfortunately, there is no …
16 citations
TL;DR: How the ethical guidelines from the APA, the Office of Research Integrity, and the American Educational Research Association can inform common disputes in this area of research relationship is analyzed.
Abstract: Little guidance is currently available for handling disputes between research mentors and students when working with shared data. This article analyzes how the ethical guidelines from the American Psychological Association (APA), the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), and the American Educational Research Association (AERA) can inform common disputes in this area. Additional insights about the nature of the research relationship are derived from contract and copyright law. Practice guidelines are proposed to safeguard student and faculty welfare in research collaboration, and recommendations are provided to help prevent and resolve disputes between students and faculty.
9 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: There seems to be significant geographic variation in the number of authors credited on scientific presentations.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE To determine if there was statistically significant geographic variation in the number of authors on abstracts of the 1999 Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) Scientific Assembly. METHODS Information on type of presentation, number of authors listed in each presentation and country of origin was obtained for 2450 abstracts from the 1999 RSNA Scientific Assembly (1292 for scientific sessions, 1158 for scientific exhibitions). RESULTS In scientific sessions, there were significantly more multiauthor (> 6 authors) presentations from Japan (32%, p < 0.001) and Germany (19%, p = 0.004) than there were from North America (United States and Canada) (11%). There were also significantly more multiauthor scientific exhibitions from Japan (29%, p < 0.001) than from North America (9%). Overall, the percentages of multiauthor presentations from Japan (30%, p < 0.001) and Germany (18%, p < 0.001) were significantly higher than those from North America (10%). CONCLUSION There seems to be significant geographic variation in the number of authors credited on scientific presentations.
8 citations