Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 361–370 | Cite as

Policies and perspectives on authorship

  • Mary Rose
  • Karla Fischer


Authorship on publications has been described as a “meal ticket” for researchers in academic settings. Given the importance of authorship, inappropriate publication credit is a pertinent ethical issue. This paper presents an overview of authorship problems and policies intended to address them. Previous work has identified three types of inappropriate authorship practices: plagiarism, giving unwarranted credit and failure to give expected credit. Guidelines from universities, journals and professional organizations provide standards about requirements of authors and may describe inappropriate practices; to a lesser extent, they provide guidance for determining authorship order. While policies on authorship may be helpful in some circumstances, they are not panaceas. Formal guidelines may not address serious power imbalances in working relationships and may be difficult to enforce in the face of particular departmental or institutional cultures. In order to develop more effective and useful guidelines, we should gain more knowledge about how students and faculty members perceive policies as well as their understanding of how policies will best benefit collaborators.


authorship credit ethics grant proposals policy publications 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Huth EJ (1983) Responsibilities of coauthorship.Annals of Internal Medicine 99: 266–7.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Psychological Association (1992) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.American Psychologist 47: 1597–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anderson C (1993) Michigan gets an expensive lesson.Science 262: 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Goodyear R K, Crego C A & Johnston M W (1992) Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: a study of critical incidents.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 23: 203–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Swazey J P, Anderson M S & Lewis K S (1993) Ethical problems in academic research.American Scientist 81: 542–553.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Owens R G & Hardley E M (1985) Plagiarism in psychology — what can and should be done?Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 38: 331–333.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jackson C I (1991)Honor in Science. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society: Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamilton D P (1991) Baltimore throws in the towel.Science 252: 768–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    See note 3 above.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hilts P J (1993) Scholar who sued wins $1.2 million.New York Times. September 25, p. A 23.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ross M & Sicoly F (1979) Egocentric biases in availability and attribution.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 322–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Glass B (1965) The ethical basis of science.Science 150: 1257–1258.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fine M A & Kurdek L A (1993) Reflections on determing authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations.American Psychologist 48: 1141–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shapiro D W, Wenger N S & Shapiro M F (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers.Journal of the American Medical Association 271: 438–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    See note 6 above.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    “Plagiarism” was not defined for subjects in the survey. (Personal communication with Kim Martin, office of Judith Swazey, The Acadia Institute, Bar Harbor, ME, March 20, 1995). It is possible that some respondents construed the term to include broader issues of “failing to give expected credit;” however, the researchers undoubtedly intended it to mean lifting of written work. This is what the National Academy of Sciences means by the term, and the Swazey survey drew from the NAS’s categories of “behaviors in the research environment the require attention” (note 5 above, p.542).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Graduate Student Association (1990)Graduate Student Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. University of California, Davis.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    See note 14 above, p. 1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Huth E J (1986) Guidelines for authorship of medical papers.Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 269–274.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1991) Guidelines for authorship.New England Journal of Medicine 324: 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    See note 15 above, p. 442.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    See note 2 above, p. 1609.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Costa M M & Gatz M (1992) Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations.Psychological Science 3: 354–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Spiegel D & Keith-Speigel P (1970) Assignment of publication credit: ethics and practices of psychologists.American Psychologist 25: 738–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    See note 24 above, p. 357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shulkin D, Goin J & Rennie D (1993) Patterns of authorship among chairmen of departments of medicine.Academic Medicine 68: 688–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Opragen Publications 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology: Social and Health SciencesDuke UniversityDurhamUSA
  2. 2.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations