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: The rate of perceived honorary authorship was substantially more frequent among respondents of lower academic rank and in those working in an environment in which their section or department head was automatically listed as an author.
Abstract: The perception of honorary authorship (overall, 26.0%) and reports of at least one author performing only “nonauthor” tasks (overall, 58.9%) according to standard criteria in our study were much more frequent among respondents of lower academic rank, likely reflecting fewer years of professional experience and a lower number of articles published in peer-reviewed journals, and among those respondents working in an environment in which their section or department head was automatically listed as an author.
73 citations
TL;DR: Based upon his 15 years of experience as a medical writer, Alastair Matheson argues that rather than obstructing industry, the current ICMJE authorship guidelines have become its preferred tool for misattributing authorship.
Abstract: Scientists and clinicians need to know the authorship, author interests, and origination of the articles they read to judge them appropriately. Since 1985, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has provided evolving guidance on how authorship should be managed in the complex setting of modern biomedical science [1],[2], to the benefit of the published literature. Issues such as accountability, fraud, conflicts of interest, trial registration, and access to data have been considered by this voluntary, self-funded, closed-membership group of select general medical journal editors (http://www.icmje.org/) [3]–[5]. However, certain industry practices, including publications planning, ghostwriting, and guest authorship, have yet to be adequately addressed. On the basis of industry publications and documents, textual analysis, and direct working experience in the “medical communications” sector, I show here how pharma has succeeded not merely in outmaneuvering the ICMJE guidelines, but is able to use them as the basis for inappropriate attributions of authorship.
72 citations
TL;DR: A more precise estimate of the size of the Higgs boson was obtained by the detector teams at the Large Hadron Collider in this article, where the size was estimated based on a more precise Higgs localization.
Abstract: Detector teams at the Large Hadron Collider collaborated for a more precise estimate of the size of the Higgs boson.
72 citations
TL;DR: The authors examined the bivariate relationship between handwriting fluency, spelling, reading, and oral language and students' quality of writing and writing production, and the extent to which such relationships are moderated by student grade level and type of learner is also investigated.
Abstract: Theories of writing development posit several component skills as necessary to the writing process. This meta-analysis synthesizes the literature on the correlation between these proposed component skills and writing outcomes. Specifically, in this study, we examine the bivariate relationships between handwriting fluency, spelling, reading, and oral language and students’ quality of writing and writing production. Additionally, the extent to which such relationships are moderated by student grade level and type of learner is also investigated. The findings document that each of the component skills demonstrates a weak to moderate positive relationship to outcomes assessing writing quality (rs = .33−.49) and the amount students write (rs = .20−.48). Moderator analyses were generally not significant with the exception that the relationship between reading and writing production was significantly higher for students in the primary grades. The implications of these findings to current theories and future rese...
70 citations
TL;DR: Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals to offer incentives for more accountable co-Authorship behaviour in published articles.
Abstract: Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I(1) for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I(1) papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, I(n) is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least I(n) papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I(1) depends on the number of papers authored N(p). The power exponent R of the relationship between I(1) and N(p) categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R = 2.25-2.5), networked (R = 2-2.25), extensively networked (R = 1.75-2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. I(n) similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.
69 citations