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
7 citations
TL;DR: A panel and audience discussion co-sponsored by the IATP and STP at the STP Annual Meeting in Denver in June 2011 generated some lively dialogue and includes additional information and practical guidelines for publication ethics.
Abstract: A panel and audience discussion co-sponsored by the International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) and the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) at the STP Annual Meeting in Denver in June 2011 generated some lively dialogue. The theme of the ninety-minute sessionwas ‘‘Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices.’’ Following some general introductory comments related to the ethics of publication, audience and panel discussion was prompted by presentation of case scenarios related to authorship and publication practices. This review summarizes some of the discussion points and includes additional information and practical guidelines for publication ethics.
6 citations
TL;DR: The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure and is an important method of assuring quality, relevance and novelty of work.
Abstract: The process of peer review for submissions to scientific journals is a well-established and widely used procedure. Review by one’s peers is a well-recognised and longstanding method of appraisal. Throughout all branches of science, medicine, humanities, art, literature, politics, sport, and in fact almost all areas of human endeavour, the judgement of work by an individual or group of experts in similar fields of study is the most rigorous and valuable form of recognition. “Peer review”, as this process is commonly known, is an important method of assuring quality, relevance, and novelty of work. However, is there still room for improvement in the procedural aspects of peer review?
5 citations
TL;DR: Ethical considerations arise when individuals who were contracted andpaid to conduct a research study and write it up for publication, are denied authorship on a scholarly publication on the grounds that their work was contracted and paid for.
Abstract: Ethical considerations arise when individuals who were contracted and paid to conduct a research study and write it up for publication, are denied authorship on a scholarly publication on the grounds that their work was contracted and paid for. Each of the various stakeholders should be considered. Researchers need to make sure that the contract recognizes their intellectual contribution and their right to be named as authors if and when the contracted study is published. If authorship disputes of published works arise, journal editors should have mechanisms in place for addressing such disputes. They should be able to see the contract and have all disputing parties agree to any changes in authorship. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the manuscript should be retracted. Contractors should develop a publication plan and include in the contract stipulations ensuring transparent and unambiguous authorship on any publication ensuing from contracted work. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee for Publication Ethics should update their guidance for authors to include advice regarding researchers involved in contracted work and how to resolve an authorship disputes around it.
4 citations