Authorship Practices Research Articles

Authorship Improprieties: Analyzing the Practice of Including Advisers as Co-Authors in Students’ Research

Purpose. This research aims to investigate the prevalent practice of including advisers as co-authors in students' research works, with a specific focus on understanding the attitudes of the academic community, particularly students and educators. The study seeks to explore. Students' and educators' perceptions, beliefs, and/or opinions regarding the practice raise concerns in higher education institutions worldwide. Methodology. Through a descriptive-correlational research design following a quantitative research approach, the researcher gathered data on the attitudes of 200 students and 200 educators of 4 Higher Education Institutions in Region IV-A, Philippines, towards the inclusion of advisers as co-authors in students' theses, particularly when presented in conferences and published in journals. The collected data is analyzed to identify prevailing opinions and perspectives within the academic community. This analysis takes into account factors such as mentorship, intellectual contribution, and ethical considerations related to authorship attribution. By weighing these factors, the researcher forms a stance on the practice and offers recommendations for its ethical implementation. Results revealed differing opinions between students and educators. Moreover, significant differences in the attitudes of faculty members towards the practice when grouped based on their highest educational attainment, academic rank, and tenure were established, as well as the significant relationship between the research engagement and productivity of faculty members, and their attitude towards the matter. Although the inclusion of advisers in students’ theses was found acceptable within the academic community, the authorship guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics, also known as COPE, suggest otherwise. Conclusion. These findings contribute to the existing literature on academic authorship improprieties and provide insights into the attitudes and opinions of the academic community. They are expected to stimulate discussions, fostering a better understanding of the implications of including advisers as co-authors in students' research works. The paper also offers practical recommendations to promote transparency, fairness, and integrity in authorship practices, ensuring that credit is appropriately attributed to all contributors in academic publications.

Give Credit Where It’s Due: The Ethical Imperatives of Authorship Attribution in Collaborative Research

This article proposes practical steps for those new to collaborative research or those seeking to improve the nature of collaborative research partnerships. Questioning academia’s exaltation of publications and authorship as coveted assets, the authors critically analyze the often complex, contentious, and ambiguous environment of collaborative research and negotiating authorship. With respect to academic publishing and ethics of authorship, this article grapples with two critical questions: (1) What factors create ethical dilemmas in authorship in academia? (2) How can academics and researchers better navigate the complexities of collaborative research to sustain ethical authorship practices? A seven-phase process model is proposed to guide the collaborative research process to mitigate ambiguities that reside in the black box. The seven phases encompass problem settings and pre-negotiations, direction setting: action planning, social capital, re-negotiations, equity and inclusivity, implementation- the submission-revision cycle, and reflexivity. This theoretical analysis aims to offer a useful resource to promote enhanced collaborative practices, and the authors take an explicit advocacy and visionary perspective to promote transparency, accountability, and reciprocal trust, to shatter overarching issues such as oppressive, deceitful, and exploitative norms in academic authorship practices.

Systematic scoping review of cluster randomised trials conducted exclusively in low-income and middle-income countries between 2017 and 2022

ObjectiveCluster randomised trials (CRTs) are used for evaluating health-related interventions in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) but raise complex ethical issues. To inform the development of future ethics guidance, we...

The Game Weavers

In this paper faculty members from the Game Writing undergraduate program at the University of Skövde offer a new lens for understanding the act of game writing as weaving, and game story as tapestry. We share recent curricular innovations from our Game Writing program that reflect this perspective, which is inspired by core concepts from feminist narratology. We approach the concept of the weaver through reflection on narratological traditions and practices of collaborative authorship, and invite all game education disciplines to consider the weaving way of thinking, in contrast with design thinking.

A Review of Authorship Inflation and Multicenter Collaboration Trends in Orthopedic, Medical, and Surgical Journals Over the Last 60 Years.

Over the past six decades, authorship numbers in academic publications have increased significantly, a phenomenon known as authorship inflation. This study aims to analyze comparative authorship trends and the influence of multicenter collaborations across major orthopedic, medical, and surgical journals. We reviewed metadata from The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), Annals of Surgery (AS), and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) from January 1, 1960, to December 31, 2019. The number of authors per publication, the prevalence of multicenter studies, and their correlation were analyzed. Data was visualized using heat maps and box plots, and trends were statistically tested using the Jonckheere-Terpstra, Mann-Kendall, and generalized linear mixed models (GLMMs). A total of 73,062 articles were analyzed, with 1,190 articles identified as originating from multicenter studies. The number of multicenter trials was found to have increased significantly over time (p < 0.001), plateauing in NEJM but continuing to rise in JBJS and AS. There was a significant increase in authorship numbers per publication over time, across all journals (p < 0.0001). There was a significant statistical correlation (p < 0.0001) as indicated by the coefficient of determination (r2), for the association between the proportion of publications with >10 authors and the proportion of multicenter publicationsacross all three journals. Authorship inflation in academic publishing may be attributable to the rise in multicenter collaborations. The rate of increase in authorship was more pronounced in medical and surgical journals compared to orthopedic journals, reflecting differing trends across specialties. These findings highlight the evolving nature of research collaboration and authorship practices in academic publishing.

Activity for CUREs to increase student understanding and application of responsible authorship and publication practices.

Professional development of scientists is enhanced by training students in responsible conduct of research earlier in their careers. One aspect of responsible conduct of research is authorship ethics, which concerns granting of credit to those who make intellectual contributions to the research. The activity discussed in this article emphasizes how authorship ethics can be integrated with Course-based Undergraduate Research Experience (CURE) and includes an adaption that could also be used for independent research students. The activity allows students to reflect upon inequalities and problems seen in scientific authorship, including gender bias, failure to credit effort (ghostwriters), and inclusion of authors that did not meaningfully contribute to the work (honorary/gift authorship). Themes seen in student reflections on how they could demonstrate ethics in authorship included: determining authorship by contribution, appropriate attributions on curriculum vitas (CV) and posters, different credit levels, understanding authorship criteria, and tracking contributions. Themes seen in student reflections on the importance of authorship were proper authorship credit distribution, authorship impacting career opportunities, and accountability in research. In the activity, students also created attributions for a poster to be presented from their research. We found that most students were able to create attributions that were correctly formatted, included the same authors, and positioned authors in the same order as other group members, matching what was presented on the finalized poster. We found that students' reflection on authorship and this professionalization of their activities in their CURE led to modest increases in their view of themselves as scientists.

Transforming Toxic Research Cultures: Protecting the Future of Medical Students and Early Career Researchers – Part I

Have you ever felt your passion for research slowly erode under the weight of unfair practices and relentless pressure to publish? Or been denied authorship credit for work you tirelessly contributed to? If so, you are not alone. This is the harsh reality for many medical students and early career researchers trapped in a “toxic research culture.” This hidden crisis undermines the integrity of medical research and jeopardizes the well-being and career prospects of those eager to advance science. Despite its prevalence, this issue remains shrouded in silence, propagating cycles of harm and hampering scientific progress. This editorial explores the evolution of medical research culture, defines the harmful practices that constitute a toxic environment, and highlights the vulnerability of junior researchers to such practices. Manifestations of toxicity, including bullying, harassment, and unethical authorship practices, are analyzed along with their detrimental impacts on mental health. Current policies and strategies for promoting a healthier research environment are discussed. We highlight the urgent need for reforms, including the promotion of whistleblowing without fear, diversifying leadership, revising evaluation criteria, and implementing educational interventions on research ethics as a preventive measure. Additionally, we explore the impact of fake mentors within academia, advising vigilance against individuals who exploit their roles for personal agendas rather than genuine mentorship. Through a call to action, we urge stakeholders and institutions to safeguard junior researchers and uphold the integrity of scientific research. IJMS plays a crucial role in this transformation by promoting mentorship, ethical practices, and accessible research.

Who is the author: genuine, honorary, ghost, gold, and fake authors?

While authorship practices can vary across different disciplines, authorship should reflect the individuals who have made a substantial contribution to the research project, take public responsibility for the paper’s content, and agree to its submission for publication. In real life, the article is usually authored by at least one truly genuine author and some parasitic authors. The first author and the last author are especially important. The middle authors are less important, and their participation is often wrongly seen as an inconsequential decorative favor. The honorary author, a gift or guest author, is added as a bonus to please someone higher in the hierarchy than the submitting author. This practice is believed to enhance the chances of publication, but usually, the excess of honorary authors will make reviewers more critical. A ghost author contributed substantially but it does not appear in the list of authors to avoid declaring an overt conflict of interest. The gold author is someone paid by a third party in direct or indirect forms, and capable of writing and signing everything asked by the payer, including overstating the merits of a new drug or ignoring its drawbacks. A fake author does not exist, and while it may seem humorous it is a breach of scientific integrity and can lead to serious consequences for the individuals involved. With Chat-generative pre-trained transformer (Chat-GPT), artificial intelligence may contribute decisively to the article content and presentation. Overall, it is important to maintain high standards of integrity and transparency in authorship practices to ensure that research findings are trustworthy and reliable. The reputation of your work is in the hands of your coauthors, so choose them carefully and make sure they share your commitment to scientific integrity.

Mediating Authorship: Wordsworth, Copyright and Media History

ABSTRACT This essay presents William Wordsworth’s advocacy for the reform of copyright laws as an event in Romantic media history. Previous scholars have discussed the poet’s engagement with Thomas Noon Talfourd’s petition in the 1830s as indicative of the period’s larger negotiation of the economic and cultural values of literary art. This essay argues that beyond issues of economic and aesthetic recognition, Wordsworth is aware of the significance of copyright as a central means of shaping the author’s communication with his readers. Within the proliferating mediascape in print in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, Wordsworth draws on the agency afforded by copyright to intervene in the process of mediation. Proposing mediation as an important new analytical approach to the discourses and practices of Romantic authorship, this essay outlines Wordsworth’s efforts toward controlling the codes and channels of communication as crucial concerns in the period’s evolving print culture.

Ethically Determining the Authorship of Health Science Research Publications: A Scoping Review

Authorship is a significant aspect of scientific research publications, serving as a primary means of acknowledging the intellectual contributions of individuals and shaping career trajectories. However, determining authorship ethically and fairly in health science research remains a complex and multifaceted issue. This scoping review aims to explore the existing literature surrounding ethical considerations associated with authorship determination in health science research publications, published between 1989 and 2023. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed that ethical authorship practices in health science research are complex and multifaceted. This review emphasized how crucial it is to have precise rules and guidelines for deciding who is the author in academic journals, research institutes, and societies. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published several ethical principles to address the difficulties associated with authorship determination. Still, there are differences and disagreements in how these rules are interpreted and applied, which could present moral enigmas. The review also examines new ethical issues arising from multidisciplinary and collaborative research, such as the responsibilities and funding of industry collaborations, shared authorship, and acknowledging the contributions of other groups. Maintaining the integrity of health science research and encouraging responsible collaboration requires making sure that authorship determination is transparent, equitable, and accountable. Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or interpretation of the research findings.

How many authors are (too) many? A retrospective, descriptive analysis of authorship in biomedical publications

Publishing in academic journals is primary to disseminate research findings, with authorship reflecting a scientist’s contribution, yielding academic recognition, and carrying significant financial implications. Author numbers per article have consistently risen in recent decades, as demonstrated in various journals and fields. This study is a comprehensive analysis of authorship trends in biomedical papers from the NCBI PubMed database between 2000 and 2020, utilizing the Entrez Direct (EDirect) E-utilities to retrieve bibliometric data from a dataset of 17,015,001 articles. For all publication types, the mean author number per publication significantly increased over the last two decades from 3.99 to 6.25 (+ 57%, p < 0.0001) following a linear trend (r2 = 0.99) with an average relative increase of 2.28% per year. This increase was highest for clinical trials (+ 5.67 authors per publication, + 97%), the smallest for case reports (+ 1.01 authors, + 24%). The proportion of single/solo authorships dropped by a factor of about 3 from 17.03% in 2000 to 5.69% in 2020. The percentage of eleven or more authors per publication increased ~ sevenfold, ~ 11-fold and ~ 12-fold for reviews, editorials, and systematic reviews, respectively. Confirming prior findings, this study highlights the escalating authorship in biomedical publications. Given potential unethical practices, preserving authorship as a trustable indicator of scientific performance is critical. Understanding and curbing questionable authorship practices and inflation are imperative, as discussed through relevant literature to tackle this issue.

At the credit crossroads: Modern neuroscience needs a cultural shift to adopt new authorship practices

At the credit crossroads: Modern neuroscience needs a cultural shift to adopt new authorship practices

Exponential authorship inflation in neuroscience and psychology from the 1950s to the 2020s.

How many researchers does it take to publish an article in top journals in neuroscience and psychology? Manually coding 42,580 articles spanning 1879-2021 from 32 journals, we examined the evolution of authorship size and its rate of change. Moreover, we assessed the driving forces behind these changes. We found that, starting from the 1950s but not earlier, the average authorship size per article in neuroscience and psychology has increased exponentially, growing by 50% and 31% over the last decade and reaching a record high of 10.4 and 4.8 authors in 2021, respectively. Single-authored articles have become a rarity today, particularly in primary research articles: 1.7% in neuroscience and 2.2% in psychology in 2019-2021 (vs. 5.7% and 11.2% in review articles). With the withering of sole authors rises a new type of authorship, group authors (e.g., a consortium). Group authorship was rare before 2000, but in 2019-2021, it appeared in 4.1% of articles in neuroscience, mostly in genetics, neuroimaging, and disease-outnumbering single-authored articles for the first time-and 0.7% in psychology, mostly in developmental and clinical research. The exponential inflation in authorship size could not be attributed to behaviors of professional editors in profit-oriented journals but aligns with a hybrid epistemic-behavioral-cultural account-an account that integrates multidimensional factors, including increased research complexity, the benefits of collaboration, the rise of government-funded research, changing norms in authorship practices, and biased incentives in evaluation. These findings suggest troubling implications for research reproducibility, innovations, equity/diversity, and ethics, calling for policy deliberations to address potential negative ramifications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Authorship practices must evolve to support collaboration and open science.

Journal authorship practices have not sufficiently evolved to reflect the way research is now done. Improvements to support teams, collaboration, and open science are urgently needed.

Respectfully Yours…: Dealing With Questionable Authorship Practices

Editorial

Practices of psychological and pedagogical support of future teachers’ personal and professional development in the conditions of distance learning

The article highlights the intermediate results of the research "Psychological and pedagogical support of future teachers’ personal and professional development in the conditions of new educational standards’ implementation in Ukraine". Various theoretical aspects as well as adapted and original practices are characterized. The experience of the authors regarding the implementation of the components - value-worldview, process-activity, emotional-resource during the motivational-cognitive, constructive-active, reflective-prognostic, value-identification stages is highlighted. Effective author's practices are presented - adaptation trainings, portfolio of personal and professional growth in the context of performance of work functions; formation of end-to-end skills of future teachers by means of digital technologies and tools (GDocs, GMeet, Zoom, Canva, MindMeister, Mentimeter, digital boards); adaptation of active learning technologies in the distance learning format (case-technologies, game, project technologies, SWOT analysis). A complex of technologies (role-playing games, training technologies, art-therapy) is presented, which contribute to the development of the emotional intelligence of future teachers in the context of the formation of professional competencies - psychological, emotional-ethical, reflective, psycho-emotional. The research was carried out in an interdisciplinary scientific field, which requires next stages of the scientific search for correction, generalization of the results of psychological and pedagogical support of future teachers’ personal and professional development.

Faculty-student authorship practices in nursing: Cross-sectional study

BackgroundAcademic institutions often encourage nursing students to submit scholarly work for publication. Oftentimes, faculty and students collaborate on scholarship during a student's enrollment in a nursing program. Although there are benefits to the faculty and students, there are also areas of conflict due to the lack of professional and institutional guidelines to ensure equitable gains. PurposeThe study explored authorship practices among nursing institutions in order to identify criteria for faculty-student authorship guidelines and policies. MethodsA descriptive and cross-sectional study was utilized to describe nursing faculty's perception of best practices for faculty-student authorship and their level of comfort with specific components of the authorship process. ResultsThere were several criteria that the faculty identified as warranting authorship credit, such as completing the review of the literature or making substantial contributions to analysis and interpretation of data. On the other hand, there were several criteria the faculty felt neutral or did not warrant authorship credit, such as providing general administration support or writing assistance. ConclusionMost faculty felt comfortable discussing authorship criteria with students. However, their responses highlighted complexities inherent in faculty-student relationships when collaborating on scholarship. This accentuated the need for the nursing profession and institutions to develop and implement faculty-student authorship guidelines.

"Technical" Contributors and Authorship Distribution in Health Science.

In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.

A review of interprofessional education research: Disciplines, authorship practices, research design, and dissemination trends

PurposeIn 2007, the World Health Organization launched the Programme on Interprofessional Education and Collaborative Practice to emphasize the importance of interprofessional education (IPE). Since then, numerous IPE reviews have focused on what has been implemented and evaluated. The purpose of this review was to explore how IPE has been implemented and evaluated in research. MethodsThe following aspects of IPE research were explored: 1) disciplines included; 2) authorship patterns, 3) assessment focus, and 4) dissemination trends. Abstracts were screened before a full text screening, review, data extraction, analysis and audit. Frequency and percentages were reported for categorical data while means and standard deviations were reported for continuous data. Chi-squared analyses examined differences between groups for categorical variables. ResultsThree-hundred and fifty-nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Authors from medical, nursing, and pharmacy schools published most frequently, with a majority using quantitative or mixed-methods techniques. Most studies involved a student discipline without an author from that discipline. Most studies also evaluated student perceptions and student knowledge, with few measuring faculty perceptions. Studies were also mostly conducted in classes, simulations, and experiential settings. IPE research was published in 98 journals, most of which were interdisciplinary journals, with the largest increase in publications in the most recent year of the review. ConclusionIPE research has grown substantially over the past 10 years. Consideration should be given to expanding IPE research methodologies, strategically publishing IPE findings, and promoting authorship representation for any student discipline involved in IPE.

(196–197) Proposals regarding unpublished materials (amendments to Article 6.1 and the footnote of Article 6.13)

The Shenzhen Code (Turland & al. in Regnum Veg. 159. 2018) amended Art. 6.1 by adding the following sentence: “Except in specified cases (Art. 8.1, 9.4(a), 9.22, Rec. 9A.3, and Art. 40.7), text and illustrations must be effectively published to be taken into account for the purposes of this Code.” The Synopsis of Proposals for the Shenzhen Congress was prescient when it noted under the proposal (Art. 6 Prop. A) that resulted in this addition “there remains the worry that other unwanted consequences might exist” (Turland & Wiersema in Taxon 66: 221. 2017). Indeed, these worries are more than hypothetical: (1) The language fails to carve out an exception for an unpublished illustration as an epitype because Art. 9.9 is not specified as an exception under Art. 6.1. While there is an exception for Art. 8.1, that Article mentions only holotype, lectotype and neotype. (2) Various unpublished illustrations have been conserved as types under Art. 14.9. Because that Article is not specified as an exception in Art. 6.1, it is not clear that these conserved types are permitted. (3) Article 46.9 provides that “external evidence” can be used to attribute authorship in some cases. Recommendation 9A.1 and 9B.1 require “understanding” the author's practices and “critical knowledge”. Presumably, unpublished text and illustrations can no longer be taken into account for these purposes. Attempting to set forth all of the exceptions would require an exhaustive review of every provision in the Shenzhen Code, and consideration of whether each provision might in some way be implicated by the new rule in Art. 6.1. Future amendments may well require additional changes, and these may well be overlooked. For example, a recent proposal would amend the so-called usage test in Art. 9.1(b) to consider whether there is “evidence in the protologue or elsewhere” to establish that the original author of the name used only one element (Turland & al. in Taxon 69: 626–627. 2020). Due to Art. 6.1, this other evidence would be limited to published text. “6.1. Effective publication is publication in accordance with Art. 29–31. Except in specified cases (Art. 6.1, 8.1 and any reference to a type in this Code, 9.4(a), 9.9, 9.19, 9.22, Rec. 9A.1, 9A.3, 9B.1, and Art. 10.4, 40.7, and 46.9) or where the use of unpublished text or illustrations is explicitly or implicitly permitted, text and illustrations1 must be effectively published to be taken into account for the purposes of this Code.” To avoid possible confusion over the status of unpublished illustrations and text, the definition of protologue (Art. 6.13 footnote) should be clarified to include them. These materials may be useful for purposes of determining whether a type is superseded under Art. 9.19(c). “1 Protologue (from Greek πρώτος, protos, first; λόγος, logos, discourse): everything associated with a name at as part of its valid publication, e.g. description, diagnosis, illustrations, references, synonymy, geographical data, citation or reference of specimens, discussion, and comments. It also includes all illustrations published, cited, or referenced in the publication (including unpublished illustrations).” I thank Nicholas J. Turland and John H. Wiersema for their comments and suggestions, which improved these proposals.