Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 467–489 | Cite as

Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science

  • Justin SolomonEmail author
Original Paper


This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be adopted in any computer science publishing standard. These principles would contribute to the reliability and scientific nature of academic publications in computer science and would allow for more straightforward discourse in future publications.


Co-authorship Computer science research Publishing 



Special thanks to James Robert Wood, Stanford Department of English and Program in Writing and Rhetoric, for his advice throughout the writing process and revisions of the final paper. Additional thanks to Prof. Clifford Nass (Stanford Department of Communications), Prof. Andrea Lunsford (Stanford Department of English), and my family for their support.


  1. 1.
    Adiga, N. R., et al. (2002). An overview of the BlueGene/L Supercomputer. In Proceedings of the 2002 ACM/IEEE Conference on Supercomputing, November 16–22, 2002, 1–22.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Frye, J., Ananthanarayanan, R., & Modha, D. S. Towards Real-Time, Mouse-Scale Cortical Simulations. IBM Research Report RJ10404 (A0702-001). Retrieved February 7, 2007, from
  3. 3.
    Cliff, P. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary, (2nd ed.) OED Online. Retrieved May 26, 1989, from Accessed 2007.
  4. 4.
    Monastersky, R. (2005). The number that’s devouring science. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 14, A12.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Association for Computing Machinery. (2007). ACM. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from
  6. 6.
    Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE. Retrieved May 7, 2007, from
  7. 7.
    Computer Science Bibliography. Michael Ley, maintainer. Retrieved May, 7, 2007, from
  8. 8.
    Petricek, V., et al. (1994). Modeling the author bias between two on-line computer science citation databases. Special interest tracks and posters, The 14th International World Wide Web Conference, May 10–14, 2005, 1062–1063.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Glänzel, W. Coauthorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980–1998): A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends, 50(3), 461–474.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Garfield, E. (1996). What is the primordial reference for the phrase ‘publish or perish’? Scientist (Philadelphia, PA), 10(12), 10–11.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Abrahams, M. (2002). The Ig Nobel prizes: The annals of improbable research. New York: Dutton.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Joseph, K., Laband, D., & Patil, V. (2005). Author order and research quality. Southern Economic Journal, 71(3), 545–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Laband, D., & Tollison, R. (2006). Alphabetized coauthorship. Applied Economics, 38(14), 1649–1653. doi: 10.1080/00036840500427007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Djerassi, C. (1989). Cantor’s dilemma. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rudd, E. (1977). The effect of alphabetical order of author listing on the careers of scientists. Social Studies of Science, 7(2), 268–269. doi: 10.1177/030631277700700208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldberger, M., Maher, B., & Flattau, P. E. (Eds.). (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Research-doctorate programs in the United States. Data set. (1995). CD-ROM. Washington: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lederman, D. Rating doctoral programs. Inside Higher Ed, 23 Nov. 2005. Retrieved June 7, 2007, from
  19. 19.
    Day, K., & Eodice, M. (2001). (First Person) 2 : A study of co-authoring in the academy. Logan: Utah State University Press.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Macrina, F. L. (2005). Scientific integrity (3rd ed.). Washington: ASM Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luey, B. (2002). Handbook for academic authors (4th ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    La Follette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print: Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Broad, W. J. (1983). Notorious Darsee case shakes assumptions about science. New York Times, 14 June, C2.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship!: Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271(6), 469–471. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.6.469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Birnholtz, J. (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.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Belcher, A., et al. (2007). Letter from members of the biological engineering division faculty: Statement of facts in regard to the James Sherley tenure case. MIT Faculty Newsletter, 19(6), 13–15.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kajiya, J. How To Get Your SIGGRAPH Paper Rejected. 29 August 2006. Retrieved March 28, 2007, from
  28. 28.
    American Psychological Association. (2001). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication. Elsevier. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from .
  30. 30.
    International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: Writing and editing for biomedical publication. February 2006. Retrieved May 26, 2007, from
  31. 31.
    Committee on Publication Ethics. Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from
  32. 32.
    Lee, W., et al. (2005). Genome-wide requirements for resistance to functionally distinct DNA-damaging agents. PLOS Genetics, 1(2), 235–246. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations