Abstract
In 2014, SAGE Publications retracted 60 articles authored by Taiwanese researchers due to suspected peer-review fraud. This scandal led to the resignation of the Minister of Education at the time since he coauthored several retracted works. Issues regarding the lack of transparent decision-making processes regarding authorship were further disclosed. Motivated by the scandal, we believe that this is one of the first empirical studies of questionable authorship practices (QAPs) in East Asian academia; we investigate Taiwanese researchers’ perceptions of QAPs. To meet this purpose, a self-reported survey was developed. Four hundred and three local researchers, including research faculty (e.g., professors), postdoctoral researchers, and Ph.D. students, participated in the survey. Four major findings resulted. First, the underlying causes of Taiwanese doctoral students’ engagement in QAPs were attributable to their desire to achieve particular academic-related successes and their feeling of reciprocal obligation to support other researchers. Second, the underlying motives for Taiwanese research associates’ (i.e., research faculty and postdoctoral fellows) engagement in QAPs were attributable to their attempts to achieve particular career successes and of the desire to consolidate their professional networks. Third, the participants generally agreed that QAPs had a long history among local academics but were rarely reported. Fourth, participants’ backgrounds (i.e., research discipline, academic rank, and type of affiliations) had significant effects on their responses regarding particular authorship issues; however, their gender did not have a significant effect. QAPs are a critical issue in Taiwanese academia; therefore, we discussed the implications of the current findings including subsequent instruction and future research.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
3rd World Conference on Research Integrity. (2013). Montreal statement on research integrity in cross-boundary research collaborations. World Conferences on Research Integrity. Retrieved April 18, 2019, from https://wcrif.org/documents/354-montreal-statement-english/file.
Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. The COPE Report. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Antes, A. L., English, T., Baldwin, K. A., & DuBois, J. M. (2018). The role of culture and acculturation in researchers’ perceptions of rules in science. Science and Engineering Ethics,24(2), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9876-4.
Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. (2018). Australian code for responsible conduct of research. Canberra: National Health and Medical Research Council.
Bavdekar, S. B. (2012). Authorship issues. Lung India: Official Organ of Indian Chest Society,29(1), 76–80. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-2113.92371.
Bennett, D. A. (2001). How can I deal with missing data in my study? Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health,25(5), 464–469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2001.tb00294.x.
Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine,15(3), 263–270. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00432.x.
Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., et al. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. British Medical Journal,314(7086), 1009–1012. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009.
Borenstein, J. (2011). Responsible authorship in engineering fields: An overview of current ethical challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics,17(2), 355–364. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9272-4.
Brown, C. E. (2016). Ethical issues when graduate students act as mentors. Ethics and Behavior,26(8), 688–702. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2016.1155151.
Chen, S., & Macfarlane, B. (2016). Academic integrity in China. In T. Bretag (Ed.), Handbook of academic integrity (pp. 99–105). Singapore: Springer.
Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research/Reviews in Mutation Research,589(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.002.
Coakes, S., & Steed, L. (1997). SPSS analysis without anguish. New York, NY: Wiley.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Conley, D., & Stadmark, J. (2012). A call to commission more women writers. Nature,488, 590. https://doi.org/10.1038/488590a.
Costa, M. M., & Gatz, M. (1992). Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations. Psychological Science,3(6), 354–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00046.x.
Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research,10(3), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/714906092.
Delamont, S., Atkinson, P., & Parry, O. (1997). Critical mass and doctoral research: Reflections on the Harris report. Studies in Higher Education,22(3), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079712331380926.
Fang, H. (2018). Normalized paper credit assignment: A solution for the ethical dilemma induced by multiple important authors. Science and Engineering Ethics,24(5), 1589–1601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9973-4.
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). Publishing: The peer-review scam. Nature,515, 480–482. https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a.
Fernandes, J. M., & Monteiro, M. P. (2017). Evolution in the number of authors of computer science publications. Scientometrics,110(2), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2214-9.
Flanagan, J. L. (2015). A comparison of the views of college of business deans and faculty on undeserved authorships. Journal of Education for Business,90(5), 241–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1027163.
Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association,280(3), 222–224. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222.
Fong, E. A., & Wilhite, A. W. (2017). Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research. PLoS ONE,12(12), e0187394. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187394.
Fontelo, P., & Liu, F. (2018). A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries. Systematic Reviews,7(1), 147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0819-1.
Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship. Science,337(6098), 1019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224988.
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—Hacking the scientific publication process. New England Journal of Medicine,373(25), 2393–2395. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics,107(2), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x.
Holman, L., Stuart-Fox, D., & Hauser, C. E. (2018). The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? PLoS Biology,16(4), e2004956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004956.
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. (2018). IEEE Publication services and products board operations manual 2019. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Publications.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. Retrieved January 1, 2020, from http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf.
Jagsi, R., Guancial, E. A., Worobey, C. C., Henault, L. E., Chang, Y., Starr, R., et al. (2006). The “gender gap” in authorship of academic medical literature—A 35-year perspective. New England Journal of Medicine,355(3), 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsa053910.
Jones, A. H. (2003). Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? Science and Engineering Ethics,9(2), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0011-3.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika,39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575.
Kennedy, P. (2002). Learning cultures and learning styles: Myth-understandings about adult (Hong Kong) Chinese learners. International Journal of Lifelong Education,21(5), 430–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370210156745.
Kennedy, M. S., Barnsteiner, J., & Daly, J. (2014). Honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications. Journal of Nursing Scholarship,46(6), 416–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12093.
Larivière, V. (2012). On the shoulders of students? The contribution of Ph.D students to the advancement of knowledge. Scientometrics,90(2), 463–481. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0495-6.
Lawrence, P. A. (2002). Rank injustice: The misallocation of credit is endemic in science. Nature,415(6874), 835–836. https://doi.org/10.1038/415835a.
Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy,42(9), 1515–1530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.06.012.
Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics,86(3), 747–761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0309-2.
Logan, J. M., Bean, S. B., & Myers, A. E. (2017). Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research? PLoS ONE,12(6), e0179956. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179956.
Macfarlane, B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education,42(7), 1194–1210. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009.
Macfarlane, B., & Saitoh, Y. (2008). Research ethics in Japanese higher education: Faculty attitudes and cultural mediation. Journal of Academic Ethics,6(3), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-008-9065-9.
Marušić, A., Bošnjak, L., & Jerončić, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE,6(9), e23477. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.
Marušić, M., Božikov, J., Katavić, V., Hren, D., Kljaković-Gašpić, M., & Marušić, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science and Engineering Ethics,10(3), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-004-0007-7.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science,159(3810), 56–63.
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review,69(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900204.
MOST (Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan). (2017). Academic ethics guidelines for researchers by the Ministry of Science and Technology. Retrieved January 1, 2020, from https://www.most.gov.tw/most/attachments/3d81520a-b403-4603-b8ef-b191c38ce80c?.
Murdock, J. L., Stipanovic, N., & Lucas, K. (2013). Fostering connections between graduate students and strengthening professional identity through co-mentoring. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling,41(5), 487–503. https://doi.org/10.1080/03069885.2012.756972.
O’Brien, J., Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., & Noble, J. (2009). Honorary coauthorship: Does it matter? Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal,60(5), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2009.09.001.
Oberlander, S. E., & Spencer, R. J. (2006). Graduate students and the culture of authorship. Ethics and Behavior,16(3), 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1603_3.
Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold, S. S. (2016). Single-blind vs double-blind peer review in the setting of author prestige. The Journal of the American Medical Association,316(12), 1315–1316. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.11014.
Olesen, A. P., Amin, L., & Mahadi, Z. (2018). In their own words: Research misconduct from the perspective of researchers in Malaysian universities. Science and Engineering Ethics,24(6), 1755–1776. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9997-9.
Pan, S. J.-A., & Chou, C. (2015). Using a two-tier test to examine Taiwanese graduate students’ misunderstanding of responsible conduct of research. Ethics and Behavior,25(6), 500–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2014.987921.
Patience, G. S., Galli, F., Patience, P. A., & Boffito, D. C. (2019). Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories. PLoS ONE,14(1), e0198117. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198117.
Pickering, C., & Byrne, J. (2014). The benefits of publishing systematic quantitative literature reviews for Ph.D candidates and other early-career researchers. Higher Education Research & Development,33(3), 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.841651.
Pole, C. J., Sprokkereef, A., Burgess, R. G., & Lakin, E. (1997). Supervision of doctoral students in the natural sciences: Expectations and experiences. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education,22(1), 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/0260293970220104.
Rajasekaran, S., Shan, R. L. P., & Finnoff, J. T. (2014). Honorary authorship: Frequency and associated factors in physical medicine and rehabilitation research articles. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation,95(3), 418–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2013.09.024.
Resnik, D., & Zeng, W. (2010). Research integrity in China: Problems and prospects. Developing World Bioethics,10(3), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00263.x.
Roach, M., & Sauermann, H. (2017). The declining interest in an academic career. PLoS ONE,12(9), e0184130. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184130.
SAGE Publications. (2014). Retraction notice. Journal of Vibration and Control,20(10), 1601–1604. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546314541924.
Salita, J. T. (2010). Authorship practices in Asian cultures. The Write Stuff: The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association,19(1), 36–38.
Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics and Behavior,15(1), 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1501_5.
Slone, R. M. (1996). Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship. American Journal of Roentgenology,167(3), 571–579.
Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, C. R., Paul-Hus, A., et al. (2019). Misconduct and misbehavior related to authorship disagreements in collaborative science. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4.
Steele, L. M., Johnson, J. F., Watts, L. L., MacDougall, A. E., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., et al. (2016). A comparison of the effects of ethics training on international and US students. Science and Engineering Ethics,22(4), 1217–1244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9678-5.
Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology - Cell Physiology,295(3), C567–C575. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008.
Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science and Medicine,70(9), 1458–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.013.
Tarkang, E. E., Kweku, M., & Zotor, F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa,8(1), 723. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphia.2017.723.
Taylor & Francis Group. (2017). Co-authorship in the humanities and social sciences: A global view. Retrieved November 15, 2018, from http://authorservices.taylorandfrancis.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Coauthorship-white-paper.pdf.
Van Noorden, R. (2018). Science in East Asia—By the numbers. Nature,558, 500–501. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-05505-2.
Wagner, C. S., Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS ONE,10(7), e0131816. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131816.
Wang, J., Wang, G. G., Ruona, W. E. A., & Rojewski, J. W. (2005). Confucian values and the implications for international HRD. Human Resource Development International,8(3), 311–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860500143285.
Wennerås, C., & Wold, A. (1997). Nepotism and sexism in peer-review. Nature,387, 341. https://doi.org/10.1038/387341a0.
West, J. D., Jacquet, J., King, M. M., Correll, S. J., & Bergstrom, C. T. (2013). The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PLoS ONE,8(7), e66212. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0066212.
Yukawa, Y., Kitanaka, C., & Yokoyama, M. (2014). Authorship practices in multi-authored papers in the natural sciences at Japanese universities. International Journal of Japanese Sociology,23(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijjs.12016.
Zhan, Y., & Wan, Z. H. (2016). Appreciated but constrained: Reflective practice of student teachers in learning communities in a Confucian heritage culture. Teaching in Higher Education,21(6), 669–685. https://doi.org/10.1080/13562517.2016.1183622.
Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M.-C., Nonaka, A., & Beom, K. (2005). Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: A cross-cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication Research Reports,22(2), 107–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810500130539.
Acknowledgements
We thank the reviewers for their valuable feedback to this study. Funding for this study was provided by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan (Grant No. MOST102-2511-S-009-002-MY4). We would also like to thank the Ministry of Education, Taiwan for supporting this study. This article was written based on part of the first author (SJP)'s doctoral dissertation; the second author (CC) coordinated the research and supervised the dissertation study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix: Section One: A Review of a Questionable Authorship Case
Appendix: Section One: A Review of a Questionable Authorship Case
Taiwanese Researchers Involved in a Questionable Authorship Controversy Regarding the SAGE Publishing Scandal
SAGE is a well-known scholarly publisher. On July 8, 2014, the Journal of Vibration and Control of SAGE issued a statement announcing the retraction of 60 articles centering around a Taiwanese researcher, Peter Chen; he was a former associate professor at the National Pingtung University of Education in Taiwan. SAGE believed that Chen sabotaged their peer-review mechanism. Specifically, Chen allowed his own manuscripts to be reviewed and published through processes that severely lacked independence, anonymity, and impartiality (Bohannon 2014; JVC 2014).
In this scandal, the Minister of Education coauthored several retracted articles, hence sparking a wave of debate regarding the responsibilities of the coauthors of those retraced works.
The concerns that the local public and academic community focused on included the following: “did the minister know he was listed as one of the coauthors on these papers?”, “to what extent did the minister contribute to the retracted papers?” and “did the minister know about the falsification of the peer-review processes?”
In addition, the brother of Peter Chen, CW Chen, a current professor at the National Kaohsiung Marine University, was a doctoral student who the minister had supervised. CW Chen also coauthored many articles that were retracted. Therefore, “what role(s) did CW Chen play in this incident?”, and “did the minister know Peter Chen, and what was the cooperative relationship among these parties?”
For your references,
Bohannon, J. (2014, July 14). Updated: Lax reviewing practice prompts 60 retractions at SAGE journal. Science.
Journal of Vibration and Control (JVC). (2014, July 8). Retraction notice. SAGE Journals.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pan, S.JA., Chou, C. Taiwanese Researchers’ Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1499–1530 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00180-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-020-00180-x