TY - JOUR
T1 - Researchers’ Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams
AU - Smith, Elise
AU - Williams-Jones, Bryn
AU - Master, Zubin
AU - Larivière, Vincent
AU - Sugimoto, Cassidy R.
AU - Paul-Hus, Adèle
AU - Shi, Min
AU - Diller, Elena
AU - Caudle, Katie
AU - Resnik, David B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019, This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply.
PY - 2020/8/1
Y1 - 2020/8/1
N2 - Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a “blood sport” or a “horror story” which can negatively affect researchers’ wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.
AB - Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a “blood sport” or a “horror story” which can negatively affect researchers’ wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.
KW - Authorship
KW - Collaboration
KW - Ethics
KW - Misbehavior
KW - Professional ethics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067250655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067250655&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3
DO - 10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 31165383
AN - SCOPUS:85067250655
SN - 1353-3452
VL - 26
SP - 1995
EP - 2022
JO - Science and Engineering Ethics
JF - Science and Engineering Ethics
IS - 4
ER -