Abstract
This chapter argues that conscientious authorship is fundamental to academic culture. By going public in words, one demands recognition for the merits of one’s research and accepts being the legitimate target for justified criticisms. The writing of a scientific text is thus an intellectually and morally committing undertaking. However, there are signs to indicate that this traditional view of science is no longer self-evident. This present chapter expresses concern over the threat to intellectual standards that is represented by a growing acceptance of phenomena such as collective authorship, honorary or gift authorship, ghostwriting and commercially inspired subterfuge and deviousness, most spectacularly exemplified by phony authorships in the trials of new drugs. It is suggested that a widespread and complacent tolerance for a certain amount of phony authorship in every corner of the medical world contributes to making it tempting for the industry to put this kind of deviance into systematic use for commercial gain.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Atterstam, I. (2008, April 20). Toppforskare säljer namnteckningar [Author’s translation: Top researchers sell signatures]. Svenska Dagbladet, 28.
DeAngelis, C. D., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2008). Impugning the integrity of medical science: The adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA, 299, 1833–1835.
Granit, R. (1948). The off/on-ratio of the isolated on-off-elements in the mammalian eye. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 32, 550–554.
Greene, M. (2007). The demise of the lone author. Nature, 450, 1165.
Healy, D., & Cattell, D. (2003). Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 22–27.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1985). Guidelines on authorship. British Medical Journal, 291, 722.
Madiba, T. E., & Dhai, A. (2006). Addressing authorship disputes. South African Medical Journal, 96, 49–50.
Pauling, L., & Corey, R. B. (1951). The structure of fibrous proteins of the collagen-gelatin group. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 37, 272–281.
Reichelt, F. K., James, I. A., & Milne, D. L. (1998). Credit where credit’s due: Guidelines on authorship. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 26, 339–344.
Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA, 299, 1800–1812.
Sacco, W. P., & Milana, S. (1984). Increase in number of authors per article in ten APA journals: 1960–1980. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 8, 77–84.
Schechter, A. N., Wyngaarden, J. B., Edsall, J. T., Maddox, J., Relman, A., Angell, M., & Stewart, W. W. (1989). Colloquium on scientific authorship: Rights and responsibilities. The FASEB Journal, 3, 209–217.
Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39, 171–198.
Smith, J. (1994). Gift authorship: A poisoned chalice? British Medical Journal, 309, 1456–1457.
Stewart, W. W., & Feder, N. (1987). The integrity of the scientific literature. Nature, 325, 207–214.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Täljedal, IB. (2013). Publish and Perish: A Note on a Collapsing Academic Authorship. In: Rider, S., Hasselberg, Y., Waluszewski, A. (eds) Transformations in Research, Higher Education and the Academic Market. Higher Education Dynamics, vol 39. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5249-8_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5249-8_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-5248-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-5249-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)