Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Al-Herz, W., Haider, H., Al-Bahhar, M., & Sadeq, A. (2014). Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: How common is it and why does it exist? Journal of Medical Ethics, 40(5), 346–348. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-101311.
Babor, T., Morisano, D., & Noel, J. (2017). Coin of the realm: Practical procedures for determining authorship. In T. F. Babor, K. Stenius, R. Pates, M. Miovský, J. O’Reilly, & P. Candon (Eds.), Publishing addiction science: A guide for the perplexed (pp. 207–227). London: Ubiquity Press.
Baskin, P. K. (2014). Authorship and contributorship: Who did what? Science Editor, 37(2), 39.
Bennett, L. M., & Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and team science: From theory to practice. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 60(5), 768–775. https://doi.org/10.2310/JIM.0b013e318250871d.
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, 1009. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1009.
Biagioli, M. (1998). The instability of authorship: Credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. The FASEB Journal, 12(1), 3–16.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity and the University of Chicago Press.
Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.002.
Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(2), 345–361. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3.
Conte, M. L., Maat, S. L., & Omary, M. B. (2013). Increased co-first authorships in biomedical and clinical publications: A call for recognition. The FASEB Journal, 27(10), 3902–3904. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.13-235630.
Council of Science Editors (CSE). (2012). CSE Task Force on Authorship Draft White Paper. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3331. Accessed 9 Oct 2013.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). London: Sage.
Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1097.
Elliott, K. C., Settles, I. H., Montgomery, G. M., Brassel, S. T., Cheruvelil, K. S., & Soranno, P. A. (2017). Honorary authorship practices in environmental science teams: Structural and cultural factors and solutions. Accountability in Research, 24(2), 80–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1251320.
Flanagin, A., Carey, L., Fontanarosa, P. B., et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA, 280(3), 222–224. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222.
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21688.
Ghiasi, G., Larivière, V., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2015). On the compliance of women engineers with a gendered scientific system. PLoS ONE, 10(12), e0145931. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0145931.
Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship. Science, 337(6098), 1019. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224988.
Hayter, M., Noyes, J., Perry, L., Pickler, R., Roe, B., & Watson, R. (2013). Who writes, whose rights, and who’s right? Issues in authorship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(12), 2599–2601. https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.12265.
Hren, D., Sambunjak, D., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2013). Medical students’ decisions about authorship in disputable situations: Intervention study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 19(2), 641–651. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-012-9358-7.
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Klavans, R., & Boyack, K. W. (2018). Thousands of scientists publish a paper every five days. Nature, 561(7722), 167. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06185-8.
Larivière, V., Desrochers, N., Macaluso, B., Mongeon, P., Paul-Hus, A., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046.
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8.
Larivière, V., Haustein, S., & Börner, K. (2015). Long-distance interdisciplinarity leads to higher scientific impact. PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0122565. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122565.
Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2008). Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences. The Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 88–112.
Malički, M., Jerončić, A., Marušić, M., & Marušić, A. (2012). Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12(1), 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-189.
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.
Matheson, A. (2011). How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship—and how they should be revised. PLoS medicine, 8(8), e1001072.
McHugh, M. L. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22(3), 276–282.
Merton, R. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
Meyer, M. J., & McMahon, D. (2004). An examination of ethical research conduct by experienced and novice accounting academics. Issues in Accounting Education, 19(4), 413–442. https://doi.org/10.2308/iace.2004.19.4.413.
Mongeon, P., Smith, E., Joyal, B., & Larivière, V. (2017). The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship. PLoS ONE, 12(9), e0184601. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0184601.
Nylenna, M., Fagerbakk, F., & Kierulf, P. (2014). Authorship: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics, 15(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-53.
Okonta, P., & Rossouw, T. (2013). Prevalence of scientific misconduct among a group of researchers in Nigeria. Developing World Bioethics, 13(3), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00339.x.
Packer, D. J. (2009). Avoiding groupthink: Whereas weakly identified members remain silent, strongly identified members dissent about collective problems. Psychological Science, 20(5), 546–548. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02333.x.
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.
Pignatelli, B. (2005). Authorship ignorance: Views of researchers in French clinical settings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 578–581. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.009449.
Rennie, D. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA, 278(7), 579. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041.
Rennie, D. (2001). Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle and Nerve, 24(10), 1274–1277. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.1144.
Resnik, D. (1997). A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3(3), 237–243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0023-5.
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004.
Sambunjak, D., Straus, S. E., & Marusic, A. (2010). A systematic review of qualitative research on the meaning and characteristics of mentoring in academic medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(1), 72–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1165-8.
Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances, 3(11), e1700404.
Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.
Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2015). Responsible conduct of research (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sismondo, S. (2009). Ghosts in the machine publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science, 39(2), 171–198.
Smith, E. (2017). A theoretical foundation for the ethical distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary publications. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 27(3), 371–411. https://doi.org/10.1353/ken.2017.0032.
Smith, E., & Master, Z. (2017). Best practice to order authors in multi/interdisciplinary health sciences research publications. Accountability in Research, 24(4), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2017.1287567.
Smith, E., & Williams-Jones, B. (2012). Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 199–212. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5.
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 team science. Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Waltman, L. (2012). An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Journal of Informetrics, 6(4), 700–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2012.07.008.
Wislar, J. S., Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P. B., & DeAngelis, C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. BMJ, 343, d6128.
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099.
Acknowledgements
Authors would like to acknowledge Drs. Kirstin Matthews and Leigh Turner for their comments on this manuscript. This work is partially supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) (program ZIA ES102646-10). ES is supported by a collaborative fellowship from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Fonds de Recherche du Québec en Santé (FRQ-S)—(#254164). ZM is partly supported through the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) (UL1 TR002377) Grant at Mayo Clinic. This paper does not represent the view of the NIH, the FRQS or any governmental institution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ES started developing a precursor to this study in collaboration with bioethicists BWJ and ZM under the supervision of DBR. The full study design and methodology of the survey was developed with team of researchers in bibliometric and library science research including CS and VL. The survey development, sample creation and data collection were completed by ES, AP-H, CS and VL. Qualitative data analysis was conducted by KC, ED, ES and MS. The paper was drafted by ES. All authors revised the paper and contributed substantially to the final draft of the manuscript. Authorship order was modified throughout the process as collaborators were added to the project. Although authors were added in decreasing order of contribution, the interdisciplinary nature of this project makes comparison of contribution difficult especially between middles authors. Authors agree on the final order of authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest related to the content of this manuscript.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z. et al. Researchers’ Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1995–2022 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00113-3