Advertisement

Minerva

pp 1–22 | Cite as

The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains

  • David Johann
  • Sabrina Jasmin Mayer
Article

Abstract

We extend previous research by systematically investigating whether perceptions of scientific authorship vary between domains. Employing regulations for authorship of scientific journals as well as the Scientists Survey 2016 conducted by the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), we provide a comprehensive picture of perceptions of scientific authorship across domains from the perspective of the supply side (journals) as well as the demand side (researchers). We find considerable differences in the perception of authorship across disciplines on both sides. Hence, not only domain-specific “formal norms,” but also domain-specific statements about ideals can be observed with regard to scientific authorship. The results have important implications: in order to avoid that researchers in disciplines with much narrower definitions of authorship are disadvantaged when compared to their colleagues from disciplines that rely on broader authorship definitions, domain-specific perceptions of authorship should be taken into account when allocating funding and jobs.

Keywords

Perception of scientific authorship Co-Authorship Publication ethics Disciplinary cultures 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Order of co-authors is alphabetical. The authors contributed equally to this manuscript. We would like to thank Kathrin Thomas and Theresa Kernecker for their helpful comments on previous drafts. We would also like to thank Jakob Kemper and Erik Wenker for their assistance with the coding of the regulations for authorship of scientific journals. Last but not least we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers as well as the participants of several conferences and workshops for their constructive and concise feedback.

Supplementary material

11024_2018_9363_MOESM1_ESM.docx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 39 kb)

References

  1. Aad, G., et al. 2015. Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in pp Collisions at s√=7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments. Phys. Rev. Lett. 114: 191803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler, Robert, John Ewing, and Peter Taylor. 2009. Citation Statistics. Statistical Science 24(1): 1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Sociological Association. 1999. Code of Ethics and Policies and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf.
  4. Auranen, Otto, and Mika Nieminen. 2010. University research funding and publication performance—An international comparison. Research Policy 39(6): 822–834.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.03.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becher, Tony. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differences. Studies in Higher Education 19(2): 151–161.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079412331382007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bennett, Dianne M., and David McD Taylor. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bently, Lionel, and Laura Biron. 2014. Discontinuities between legal conceptions of authorship and social practices: What, if anything, is to be done? In The work of authorship, ed. Mireille van Eechoud, 237–276. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biagioli, Mario. 1998. The Instability of Authorship: Credit and Responsibility in Contemporary Biomedicine. The FASEB Journal 12(1): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Biagioli, Mario. 2003. Rights or rewards? Changing frameworks of scientific authorship. In Scientific authorship: credit and intellectual property in science, eds. Mario Biagioli, and Peter Louis Galison, 253–281. New York, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Birnholtz, Jeremy P. 2006. What does it mean to be an author?: The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 57(13): 1758–1770.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Böhmer, Susan, Jörg Neufeld, Sybille Hinze, Christian Klode, and Stefan Hornbostel. 2011. Wissenschaftler-Befragung 2010: Forschungsbedingungen von Professorinnen und Professoren an deutschen Universitäten. iFQ-Working Paper (8).Google Scholar
  12. Bošnjak, Lana, and Ana Marušić. 2012. Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 93(3): 751–763.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bourdieu, Pierre. 1975. The specificity of the scientific field and the social conditions of the progress of reason. Information (International Social Science Council) 14(6): 19–47.  https://doi.org/10.1177/053901847501400602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Claxton, Larry D. 2005. Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation research 589(1): 17–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clement, T. Prabhakar. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cronin, Blaise. 2005. The hand of science. Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cunningham, Sally Jo, and S.M. Dillon. 1997. Authorship patterns in information systems. Scientometrics 39(1): 19–27.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02457428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. CWTS Leiden Ranking. 2016. Indicators. http://www.leidenranking.com/information/indicators.
  19. Dance, Amber. 2012. Authorship: Who’s on first? Nature 489(7417): 591–593.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Solla Price, Derek John. 1986. Little Science, big science … and beyond. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 2013. Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Empfehlungen der Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“, 2nd edn.Google Scholar
  22. Engels, Tim C.E., Truyken L.B. Ossenblok, and Eric H.J. Spruyt. 2012. Changing publication patterns in the Social Sciences and Humanities, 2000–2009. Scientometrics 93(2): 373–390.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Flanagin, Annette, Lisa A. Carey, Phil B. Fontanarosa, Stephanie G. Phillips, Brian P. Pace, George D. Lundberg, and Drummond Rennie. 1998. Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals. JAMA 280(3): 222.  https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Geiser, Christian. 2011. Datenanalyse mit Mplus. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 2nd ed. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften / Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH Wiesbaden.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2002. Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998). A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends 50: 461–473.Google Scholar
  26. Goodman, Neville W. 1994. Survey of fulfilment of criteria for authorship in published medical research. BMJ 309(6967): 1482.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.309.6967.1482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haeussler, Carolin, and Henry Sauermann. 2013. Credit where credit is due?: The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship. Research Policy 42(3): 688–703.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.09.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hanmer, Michael J., and Kerem Ozan Kalkan. 2013. Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models. American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 263–277.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00602.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Havemann, Frank. 2009. Einführung in die Bibliometrie. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung e.V; Inst. für Bibliotheks- und Informationswiss. der Humboldt-Univ.Google Scholar
  30. Hudson, John. 1996. Trends in Multi-Authored Papers in Economics. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 10(3): 153–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hwang, Seong Su, Hae Hiang Song, Jun Hyun Baik, So Lyung Jung, Seog Hee Park, Kyu Ho Choi, and Young Ha Park. 2003. Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: analysis of author contribution lists in research articles with multiple authors published in radiology. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Radiology 226(1): 16–23.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2261011255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Igou, Eric R., and Wijnand A.P. van Tilburg. 2015. Ahead of others in the authorship order: names with middle initials appear earlier in author lists of academic articles in psychology. Frontiers in Psychology 6: 469.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jabbehdari, Sahra, and John P. Walsh. 2017. Authorship Norms and Project Structures in Science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 280(3): 1–29.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243917697192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jiménez-Contreras, Evaristo, Félix de Moya, and Emilio Delgado López-Cózar. 2003. The evolution of research activity in Spain. Research Policy 32(1): 123–142.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00008-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johann, David, and Jörg Neufeld. 2016. Performance-based allocation of funds, pressure to publish and publication strategies. Paper prepared for presentation at the 4S/EASST Conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, Benjamin F., Stefan Wuchty, and Brian Uzzi. 2008. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science (New York, N.Y.) 322(5905): 1259–1262.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Katz, J. Sylvan, and Ben R. Martin. 1997. What is research collaboration? Research Policy 26(1): 1–18.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kuther, T.L. 2008. Surviving graduate school in psychology: A pocket mentor. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  39. Kwok, L.S. 2005. The White Bull effect: Abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics 31(9): 554–556.  https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2004.010553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Larivière, Vincent, Nadine Desrochers, Benoît Macaluso, Philippe Mongeon, Adèle Paul-Hus, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. 2016. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science 46(3): 417–435.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Laudel, Grit. 2002. What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation 11(1): 3–15.  https://doi.org/10.3152/147154402781776961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lee, S., and Barry Bozeman. 2005. The Impact of Research Collaboration on Scientific Productivity. Social Studies of Science 35(5): 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Levsky, Marc E., Alex Rosin, Troy P. Coon, William L. Enslow, and Michael A. Miller. 2007. A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995-2005. Southern Medical Journal 100(4): 371–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Leydesdorff, Loet, Han Woo Park, and Caroline Wagner. 2014. International coauthorship relations in the Social Sciences Citation Index: Is internationalization leading the Network? Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology 65(10): 2111–2126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Liefner, Ingo. 2003. Funding, resource allocation, and performance in higher education systems. Higher Education 46(4): 469–489.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1027381906977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lissoni, Francesco, Fabio Montobbio, and Lorenzo Zirulia. 2013. Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 95: 49–69.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2013.08.016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Logdberg, Linda. 2011. Being the ghost in the machine: a medical ghostwriter’s personal view. PLoS Medicine 8(8): e1001071.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Malički, Mario, Ana Jerončić, Matko Marušić, and Ana Marušić. 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: 189.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Marušić, Ana, Tamara Bates, Ante Anić, and Matko Marušić. 2006. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: A randomized study in a general medical journal. Current Medical Research and Opinion 22(6): 1035–1044.  https://doi.org/10.1185/030079906X104885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marušić, Ana, Lana Bošnjak, and Ana Jerončić. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayer, Sabrina Jasmin. 2016. Trends and developments in authorship patterns in five Social Science disciplines from 1991 to 2014. Proceedings of the 21 st international conference on science and technology indicators.Google Scholar
  52. Mayuru, Amin, and Michael Mabe. 2000. Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing 1(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
  53. Merton, Robert K. 1988. The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property. Isis 79(4): 606–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Muthén, Linda K., and Bengt O. Muthén. 1998–2010. Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
  55. Nature. 2009. Authorship policies. Nature 458: 1078.  https://doi.org/10.1038/4581078a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Neufeld, Jörg, and David Johann. 2018a. Wissenschaftlerbefragung 2016 - Datensatz. Hannover/Berlin: DZHW.Google Scholar
  57. Neufeld, Jörg, and David Johann. 2018b. Wissenschaftlerbefragung 2016 - Methodenbeschreibung und Fragebogen. Hannover/Berlin: DZHW.Google Scholar
  58. Ponomariov, Branco, and Craig Boardman. 2016. What is co-authorship? Scientometrics 109(3): 1939–1963.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2127-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rahman, Mohammad Tariqur, Joe Mac Regenstein, Noor Lide Abu Kassim, and Nazmul Haque. 2017. The need to quantify authors’ relative intellectual contributions in a multi-author paper. Journal of Informetrics 11(1): 275–281.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2017.01.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Resnik, David B., Shyamal Peddada, and J.R. Winnon Brunson. 2009. Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in Research 16(5): 254–267.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620903190299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Riesenweber, Christina. 2014. Reputation, Wahrheit und Blind Peer Review. Eine systemtheoretische Perspektive auf anonymisierte Autorschaft als Qualitätssicherungsstandard der Wissenschaften. In Theorien und Praktiken der Autorschaft, eds. Matthias Schaffrick and Marcus Willand, 595–614. spectrum Literaturwissenschaft / spectrum Literature, vol. 47. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  62. She Figures 2012. 2013. Gender in Research and Innovation. EUR, vol. 25617. Luxembourg: Publ. Off. of the Europ. Union.Google Scholar
  63. Sin, Sei-Ching Joanna. 2011. International coauthorship and citation impact: A bibliometric study of six LIS journals, 1980–2008. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 62(9): 1770–1783.  https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith, Richard. 2012. Let’s simply scrap authorship and move to contributorship. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 344: e157.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Šupak-Smolčić, Vesna, Ana Mlinarić, Dragana Antončić, Martina Horvat, Jelena Omazić, and Ana-Maria Šimundić. 2015. ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica. Biochemia Medica 25(3): 324–334.  https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor, Mike, and Gudmundur A. Thorisson. 2012. Fixing authorship – towards a practical model of contributorship. Research Trends (31).Google Scholar
  67. Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., and Judit Dobránszki. 2015. Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics: 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3.
  68. Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A. 2011. The ethics of collaborative authorship. More realistic standards and better accountability are needed to enhance scientific publication and give credit where it is due. EMBO Reports 12(9): 889–893.  https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., and Judit Dobranszki. 2016. Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(5): 1457–1472.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. The PLoS Medicine Editors. 2009. Ghostwriting: the dirty little secret of medical publishing that just got bigger. PLoS Medicine 6(9): e1000156.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Tscharntke, Teja, Michael E. Hochberg, Tatyana A. Rand, Vincent H. Resh, and Jochen Krauss. 2007. Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology 5(1): e18.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wager, Elizabeth. 2007a. Authors, ghosts, damned lies, and statisticians. PLoS Medicine 4(1): e34.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wager, Elizabeth. 2007b. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed : Medscape General Medicine 9(3): 16.Google Scholar
  74. Walters, Glenn D. 2015. Measuring the quantity and quality of scholarly productivity in criminology and criminal justice: A test of three integrated models. Scientometrics 102(3): 2011–2022.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-014-1496-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Waltman, Ludo. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Waltman, Ludo. 2015. Citation impact indicators review. http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02099. Accessed 5 January 2016.
  77. Waltman, Ludo, and Nees Jan van Eck. 2015. Field-normalized citation impact indicators and the choice of an appropriate counting method. Journal of Informetrics 9(4): 872–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. West, Jevin D., Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M. King, Shelley J. Correll, and Carl T. Bergstrom. 2013. The role of gender in scholarly authorship. PloS One 8(7): e66212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Whitley, Richard. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Wislar, Joseph S., Annette Flanagin, Phil B. Fontanarosa, and Catherine D. Deangelis. 2011. Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.) 343: d6128.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of SociologyUniversity of ZurichZurichSwitzerland
  2. 2.Institute for Political ScienceUniversity of Duisburg-EssenDuisburgGermany

Personalised recommendations