scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Responsible Conduct of Research and Ethical Publishing Practices: A Proposal to Resolve ‘Authorship Disputes’ over Multi-Author Paper Publication

01 Sep 2020-Journal of Academic Ethics (Springer Netherlands)-Vol. 18, Iss: 3, pp 283-300
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
Journal ArticleDOI
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.
References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This work states that multiple co‐investigators have become the norm, and a result is that old concepts of authorship—which, when there was but one author, automatically linked credit with accountability—have eroded.
Abstract: Numerous examples of irresponsible authorship are associated with the rise in the number of authors per article and with the documented rise in authorship disputes. Multiple co-investigators have become the norm, and a result is that old concepts of authorship-which, when there was but one author, automatically linked credit with accountability-have eroded. The answer, in the tradition of scientific transparency, is for authors to decide together their individual contributions and disclose these to their readers. This disclosure is now required by many major general medical journals and has been adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors as the standard.

53 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors have sought to highlight the pitfalls researchers sometimes entangle themselves within an act of compromise thereby impinging on the ethical and professional responsibilities for the content of a paper under consideration.
Abstract: Dissemination of research findings through the publication of one’s work or a group of contributors is an important part of the research process, as this allows the passing on of benefits to a much wider community. In whatever evocative form this dissemination may take, the onus lies on the author(s) to ensure adherence to the code of ethics as it pertains to the integrity of the information being put out. We publish because we want our findings to be adapted into practice and application, or in some cases may be relevant to policy makers in decision-making. To a large extent in the field of academia, successful publication improves opportunities for academic funding and promotion whilst enhancing scientific and scholarly achievement and repute. A situation may be compromised where intellectual contributions to a scientific investigation do not adhere to the four key guidelines of scholarship, authorship, approval and agreement as well as the protocols of ensuring good publication ethics. The objective of this review is to lay emphasis on universal standards for manuscript authorship and to fostering good practices. This in our view will bring authorship credit and accountability to the attention of our colleagues and readers at large. To achieve this, a systematic and critical review of the literature was undertaken. Electronic databases, academic journals and books from various sources were accessed. Several key search terms relating to responsible authorship, common authorship malpractices, conflict of interest, universal publication guidelines and other authorship related issues, were used. Only references deemed useful from relevant texts and journal articles were included. In this paper, the authors have sought to highlight the pitfalls researchers sometimes entangle themselves within an act of compromise thereby impinging on the ethical and professional responsibilities for the content of a paper under consideration. This article presents the case that authorship has a strong currency that brings not only personal satisfaction but also career rewards based on publication counting. In all cases described here, a universal standard for manuscript authorship will be critical in fostering good practices. As you write and review manuscripts, keep these good practices in mind, and consider ways to bring authorship credit and accountability to the attention of your colleagues and readers.

47 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Responses to a survey on credit issues were conducted of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States and respondents who had asked to be removed from authorship were more likely to give authorship or an acknowledgement to others, both of these factors being related to longevity as a publishing scientist.
Abstract: A survey on credit issues was conducted of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Six-hundred faculty members responded representing 16% of the survey recipients. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to published projects. Neither the number of years after receiving their Ph.D., their fields of expertise, their total number of publications, nor their total number of single-author publications showed any significant relationship with the perception of not receiving appropriate credit. Twenty percent of the respondents had discovered that they were an author of a paper, after that paper had been submitted to a journal. Forty-nine percent reported that they had asked to have their name deleted as an author. Relationships between these perceptions and academic background factors were examined. For example, respondents who had asked to be removed from authorship were more likely to give authorship or an acknowledgement to others and were also more likely to have had an authorship problem with others, both of these factors being related to longevity as a publishing scientist.

43 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
06 Jul 2006-Nature
TL;DR: It is suggested that, when assessments are complete, journals ask reviewers to review the other reviewers’ comments before the editor makes a decision about publication, to help editors better assess the suitability of a recommended rejection, revision or acceptance.
Abstract: SIR — As a young investigator with limited experience in the peer-review process, I would like to add a perhaps naive suggestion to the comments made by Rory Wilson (Nature 441, 812; 2006) and others in Correspondence and at www.nature.com/ nature/peerreview/debate/index.html). As a result of my conversations with peers and mentors, I suggest that, when assessments are complete, journals ask reviewers to review the other reviewers’ comments before the editor makes a decision about publication. Although this assessment is traditionally reserved for the editor, by holding reviewers accountable, thereby encouraging fair and reasonable reports, editors will be better able to assess the suitability of a recommended rejection, revision or acceptance. I believe my suggestion would be particularly useful in journals for which the editor is a practising scientist. In these cases the editor is not anonymous, so may not assess reports as freely as reviewers who have this protection. Although the time taken for the initial review process may be increased by my suggestion, I believe it would result in a fairer process, as the editor would benefit from the feedback in the decision-making stage and the reviewers would be given an incentive to provide their services fairly. Alexandra List Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720-1650, USA

43 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.
Abstract: An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association’s standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author’s ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.

33 citations