Abstract
Increasing complexity and multidisciplinarity make collaboration essential for modern science. This, however, raises the question of how to assign accountability for scientific misconduct among larger teams of authors. Biomedical societies and science associations have put forward various sets of guidelines. Some state that all authors are jointly accountable for the integrity of the work. Others stipulate that authors are only accountable for their own contribution. Alternatively, there are guarantor type models that assign accountability to a single author. We contribute to this debate by analyzing the outcomes of 80 scientific misconduct investigations of biomedical scholars conducted by the U.S. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). We show that the position of authors on the byline of 184 publications involved in misconduct cases correlates with responsibility for the misconduct. Based on a series of binary regression models, we show that first authors are 38% more likely to be responsible for scientific misconduct than authors listed in the middle of the byline (p<0.01). Corresponding authors are 14% more likely (p<0.05). These findings suggest that a guarantor-like model where first authors are ex-ante accountable for misconduct is highly likely to not miss catching the author responsible, while not afflicting too many bystanders.
Highlights
Over the course of the 20th century, science evolved from a norm of single authorship to collaboration
We find that first authors are 37% more likely to be found responsible for scientific misconduct than middle authors
Corresponding authors are 12% more likely. This observation informs the design of accountability guidelines; guidelines requiring authors to share accountability do not reflect the fact that first authors and corresponding authors are most likely to be responsible for misconduct
Summary
Over the course of the 20th century, science evolved from a norm of single authorship to collaboration. We contribute to the debate on accountability by analyzing who is responsible for scientific misconduct within author teams. We assess whether the results of U.S Office of Research Integrity (ORI) investigations correspond best with existing accountability guidelines or a guarantor model. We estimate Probit models of being responsible for misconduct within the author team as a function of the author’s position on the byline This reflects relative contribution and credit: first, senior (last), and corresponding. This observation informs the design of accountability guidelines; guidelines requiring authors to share accountability do not reflect the fact that first authors and corresponding authors are most likely to be responsible for misconduct This means that the social cost of wrongfully holding contributing authors accountable for misconduct is likely higher than its benefits. Guarantor models should instead prove to be more efficient, to the extent that they allocate accountability to authors with a central role
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
