scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Journal ArticleDOI

Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring

01 Dec 2016-Science and Engineering Ethics (Springer Netherlands)-Vol. 22, Iss: 6, pp 1717-1743
TL;DR: A variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co- author credit and unwarranted inclusion are examined, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes.
Abstract: Scholars and policy-makers have expressed concerns about the crediting of coauthors in research publications. Most such problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones. But our research shows that there is no consensus on "deserving" or on what type of contribution suffices for co-authorship award. Our study uses qualitative data, including interviews with 60 US academic science or engineering researchers in 14 disciplines in a set of geographically distributed research-intensive universities. We also employ data from 161 website posts provided by 93 study participants, again US academic scientists. We examine a variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co-author credit and unwarranted inclusion, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes. Determinants of outcomes include characteristics of disciplines and fields, institutional work culture, power dynamics and team-specific norms and decision processes.
Citations
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: There are numerous dimensions of co-authorship, the most influential of which is informal and relational and with little (directly) to do with intellectual and/or other resource contributions.
Abstract: Science and technology policy academics and evaluators use co-authorship as a proxy for research collaboration despite knowing better. Anecdotally we understand that an individual might be listed as an author on a particular publication for numerous reasons other than research collaboration. Yet because of the accessibility and other advantages of bibliometric data, co-authorship is continuously used as a proxy for research collaboration. In this study, a national (US) sample of academic researchers was asked about their relationships with their closest research collaborators--some with whom respondents reported having co-authored and some with whom respondents reported not co-authoring. The results suggest there are numerous dimensions of co-authorship, the most influential of which is informal and relational and with little (directly) to do with intellectual and/or other resource contributions. Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Generally we advise academics and evaluators interested in tracking co-authorship as a proxy for collaboration to collect additional data beyond those available from popular bibliometric resources because such information means better-informed modeling and better-informed policy and management decision making.

77 citations


Cites background from "Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Ac..."

  • ...Yet, we know from the research collaboration literature that is survey—not bibliometrics-based that relationships matter and can sometimes lead to authorship ascription, including unwarranted ascription per the above-listed criteria (Bozeman and Youtie 2015)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Overall, the findings support that gender structures some part of the collaborative experience, but that status hierarchy exerts more clear effects.
Abstract: Collaboration is central to modern scientific inquiry, and increasingly important to the professional experiences of academic scientists. While the effects of collaboration have been widely studied, much less is understood about the motivations to collaborate and collaboration dynamics that generate scientific outcomes. A particular interest of this study is to understand how collaboration experiences differ between women and men, and the attributions used to explain these differences. We use a multi-method study of university Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics faculty research collaborators. We employ 177 anonymous open-ended responses to a web-based survey, and 60 semi-structured interviews of academic scientists in US research universities. We find similarities and differences in collaborative activity between men and women. Open-ended qualitative textual analysis suggests that some of these differences are attributed to power dynamics – both general ones related to differences in organi...

43 citations


Additional excerpts

  • ...Finally, Bozeman and Youtie (2015) used both qualitative and quantitative sources of data to determine that many disputes between co-authors have their origins in a lack of communication about coauthorship, and lack of consensus about norms of attribution based on team and disciplinary…...

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors investigate how tourism scholars view interdisciplinary research and find that strong attachment to the tourism field and feeling comfortable and familiar with commonly used methodologies provide barriers to inter-disciplinary research.

43 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information, is introduced.
Abstract: Assigning authorship and recognizing contributions to scholarly works is challenging on many levels. Here we discuss ethical, social, and technical challenges to the concept of authorship that may impede the recognition of contributions to a scholarly work. Recent work in the field of authorship shows that shifting to a more inclusive contributorship approach may address these challenges. Recent efforts to enable better recognition of contributions to scholarship include the development of the Contributor Role Ontology (CRO), which extends the CRediT taxonomy and can be used in information systems for structuring contributions. We also introduce the Contributor Attribution Model (CAM), which provides a simple data model that relates the contributor to research objects via the role that they played, as well as the provenance of the information. Finally, requirements for the adoption of a contributorship-based approach are discussed.

40 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is concluded that junior scholars are more likely to have negative collaboration experiences than their senior peers, and the number of collaborators at one’s own university is correlated with an increase innegative collaboration experiences.
Abstract: Even though there is a rich discussion in the literature about co-authorship practices, many of the existing studies do not offer a dynamic picture of co-authorship patterns and experiences across disciplines. To address the research gap, our study aims to explore several key dimensions of the social dynamics in co-authorship practices. In particular, we examine cohort differences in collaboration patterns across disciplines and cohort differences in negative collaboration experiences across disciplines. To conduct our analyses, we use data from a national survey of scholars and engineers in 108 top research universities. Our results indicate that the number of collaborators at one's own university is correlated with an increase in negative collaboration experiences, while an increase in collaborators at other universities is not correlated with an increase in negative collaboration experiences. In addition, we conclude that junior scholars are more likely to have negative collaboration experiences than their senior peers. This result is true even after controlling for gender and discipline.

36 citations


Cites background from "Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Ac..."

  • ...…have focused on collaboration experiences (e.g., Bozeman et al. 2015; Youtie and Bozeman 2014), ethical problems in research co-authoring (e.g., Bozeman and Youtie 2015; Marušić et al. 2011), and variations in co-authorship network (De Stefano et al. 2011; Liu et al. 2005; Uddin et al. 2013)....

    [...]

References
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A number of apparently diverse personality scales—variously called trait anxiety, neuroticism, ego strength, general maladjustment, repression-sensitization, and social desirability—are reviewed and are shown to be in fact measures of the same stable and pervasive trait.
Abstract: A number of apparently diverse personality scales—variously called trait anxiety, neuroticism, ego strength, general maladjustment, repression-sensitization, and social desirability—are reviewed and are shown to be in fact measures of the same stable and pervasive trait. An integrative interpretation of the construct as Negative Affectivity (NA) is presented. Extensive data indicate that high-NA individuals are more likely to experience discomfort at all times and across situations, even in the absence of overt stress. They are relatively more introspective and tend differentially to dwell on the negative side of themselves and the world. Further research is needed to explain the origins of NA and to elucidate the characteristics of low-NA individuals. Rorer and Widiger (1983) recently bemoaned that in the field of personality "literature reviews appear to be disparate conglomerations rather than cumulative or conclusive integrations" (p. 432). We intend this review to be an exception to this discouraging statement. Distinct and segregated literatures have developed around a number of specific personality measures that, despite dissimilar names, nevertheless intercorrelate so highly that they must be considered measures of the same construct. Following Tellegen (1982), we call this construct Negative Affectivity (NA) and present a comprehensive view of the trait that integrates data from a wide variety of relevant research. We are not the first to note this broad and pervasive personality trait. The Eysencks, for example, (e.g. Eysenck & Eysenck, 1968) have done extensive research in the area, traditionally calling the dimension "Neuroticism," although in their most recent revision (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1975) they suggest a label, "emotionality," that is similar to our own. Nonetheless, in discussing the relation between our interpretation and previous views of the domain, we argue for the preferability of our term, Negative Affectivity. We also present

4,544 citations


"Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Ac..." refers background in this paper

  • ...More than three quarters of these responses were about negative experiences, perhaps not surprising since research (Watson and Clark, 1984; Nabi, 1999) shows that people are likely to report especially salient experiences and ones that are easily recalled and, moreover, that highly negative…...

    [...]

  • ...More than three quarters of these responses were about negative experiences, perhaps not surprising since research (Watson and Clark, 1984; Nabi, 1999) shows that people are likely to report especially salient experiences and ones that are easily recalled and, moreover, that highly negative experiences are particularly salient and easier to recall....

    [...]

Book
28 Dec 2001
TL;DR: In this article, the authors discuss academic disciplines overlaps, boundaries and specialisms aspects of community life patterns of communication academic careers and the wider context implications for theory and practice in the context of communication.
Abstract: Points of departure academic disciplines overlaps, boundaries and specialisms aspects of community life patterns of communication academic careers the wider context implications for theory and practice. Appendix: research issues.

2,981 citations


"Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Ac..." refers background in this paper

  • ...It is easy enough to understand the miscommunications and differences in expectations that accrue from clashes in disciplinary backgrounds and differences in work culture and context (see Becher and Trowler, 2001)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
18 May 2007-Science
TL;DR: It is demonstrated that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed.
Abstract: We have used 199 million papers over 5 decades and 21 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, social sciences, arts and humanities, and patents, suggesting that the process of knowledge creation has fundamentally changed

2,702 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors distinguish between collaboration at different levels and show that inter-institutional and international collaboration need not necessarily involve inter-individual collaboration, and argue for a more symmetrical approach in comparing the costs of collaboration with the undoubted benefits when considering policies towards research collaboration.

2,594 citations

Book
01 Jan 1982
TL;DR: In this article, the authors present five case studies of major fiascoes resulting from poor decisions made during the administrations of five American presidents' Franklin D. Roosevelt (failure to be prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor), Harry S Truman (the invasion of North Korea), John F. Kennedy (the Bay of Pigs invasion), Lyndon B. Johnson (escalation of the Vietnam War), and Richard M. Nixon (the Watergate cover-up).
Abstract: PrefaceThe main theme of this book occurred to me while reading Arthur M. Schlesinger's chapters on the Bay of Pigs in A Thousand Days. At first, I was puzzled: How could bright, shrewd men like John F. Kennedy and his advisers be taken in by the CIA's stupid, pat ch work plan? I began to wonder whether some kind of psychological contagion, similar to social conformity phenomena observed in studies of small groups, had interfered with their mental alertness, I kept thinking about the implications of this notion until one day I found myself talking about it, in a seminar of mine on group psychology at Yale University. I suggested that the poor decision-making performance of the men at those White House meetings might be akin to the lapses in judgment of ordinary citizens who become more concerned with retaining the approval of the fellow members of their work group than with coming up with good solutions to the tasks at hand.Shortly after that, when I reread Schlesinger's account, I was struck by some observations that earlier had escaped my notice. These observations began to fit a specific pattern of concurrence-seeking behavior that had impressed me time and again in my research on other kinds of face-to-face groups, particularly when a qwe-feelingq of solidarity is running high. Additional accounts of the Bay of Pigs yielded more such observations, leading me to conclude that group processes had been subtly at work, preventing the members of Kennedy's team from debating the real issues posed by the CIA's plan and from carefully appraising its serious risks.Then in Joseph de Rivera's The Psychological Dimension of Foreign Policy, I found an impressive example of excluding a deviant from Truman's group of advisers during the period of the ill-fated Korean War decisions. De Rivera's comments about the group's behavior prompted me to look further into that series of decisions and soon I encountered evidence of other manifestations of group processes, like those apparently operating in the Bay of Pigs decision.By this time, I was sufficiently fascinated by what I began to call the groupthink hypothesis to start looking into a fairly large number of historical parallels. I selected for intensive analysis two additional United States foreign-policy decisions and again found consistent indications of the same kind of detrimental group processes. Later I added a case study of a president's criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, which I now regard as the most impressive example of groupthink.This book presents five case studies of major fiascoes, resulting from poor decisions made during the administrations of five American presidents' Franklin D. Roosevelt (failure to be prepared for the attack on Pearl Harbor), Harry S Truman (the invasion of North Korea), John F. Kennedy (the Bay of Pigs invasion), Lyndon B. Johnson (escalation of the Vietnam War), and Richard M. Nixon (the Watergate cover-up). Each of these decisions was a group product, issuing from a series of meetings of a small body of government officials and advisers who constituted a cohesive group. And in each instance, the members of the policy-making group made incredibly gross miscalculations about both the practical and moral consequences of their decisions.The second section, for comparative purposes, presents two case studies of well worked out decisions made by similar groups whose members made realistic appraisals of the consequences. One of these is the course of action chosen by the Kennedy administration during the Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. This decision, made by almost the same cast of characters that had approved the Bay of Pigs invasion plan in 1961, was arrived at very carefully, in a group atmosphere conducive to independent critical thinking, unlike that which prevailed in the earlier decision. Similarly, the second counterpoint example deals with the hardheaded way that planning committees in the Truman administration evolved the Marshall Plan in 1948. These two case studies indicate that policy-making groups do not always suffer the adverse consequences of group processes, that the quality of the group's decisionmaking activities depends upon current conditions that influence the group atmosphere.n n n n n n n n n

2,425 citations


"Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Ac..." refers background in this paper

  • ...Most, not all, such crediting problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones....

    [...]

  • ...…to problems well known to group dynamics and group decision-making, such as suppression of dissent (Nemeth, 1986; Tollefsen, 2006) and “groupthink” (Janis, 1982; MaCauley, 1989; Esser, 1998; Baron, 2005), “squeaky wheel” phenomenon (Plous, 1993; Labianca, Brass and Gray, 1998) whereby the most…...

    [...]