Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 365–388 | Cite as

Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices

Article

Abstract

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association’s standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author’s ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.

Keywords

Authorship credit Social sciences Publication policies Publication ethics Codes of ethics Responsible conduct of research RCR Psychology Sociology Education 

References

  1. American Educational Research Association. (1991). Proposed ethical standards for the American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 20(9), 31–35.Google Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association. (1992). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Educational Research Association. (2000). Ethical standards. http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=90&id=222. Accessed April 23, 2011.
  4. American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publication. http://www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx?menu_id=32&id=1850. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  5. American Educational Research Association. (2007). General information for contributors. http://www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx?menu_id=32&id=503, Accessed April 21, 2011.
  6. American Educational Research Association. (2008). Conflicts of interest policy. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 375–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of ethics. Educational Researcher, 40(3),145–156.Google Scholar
  9. American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (2009). Standards for educational and psychological testing. http://teststandards.org/Accessed April 27, 2011.
  10. American Educational Research Journal. (2011). More about this journal. http://aer.sagepub.com/. Accessed April 23, 2011 (manuscript submission).
  11. American Psychological Association (APA). (1951). Committee on ethical standards in psychology, ethical standards in writing and publishing, section 5. American Psychologist, 6(8), 443–452.Google Scholar
  12. American Psychological Association. (1952). Discussion on ethics. American Psychologist, 7(8), 425–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. American Psychological Association. (1958). Standards of ethical behavior for psychologists: Report of the committee on ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 13(6), 266–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47(12), 1597–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. American Psychological Association. (2002a). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. American Psychological Association. (2002b). Certification of compliance with ethical issues. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. American Psychological Association. (2007). Ethics office: Responsible conduct for research. http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/index.aspx. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  18. American Psychological Association. (2009). Complying with ethical, legal, and policy requirements. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., pp. 231–235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  19. American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2010 amendments. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Accessed April 24, 2011.
  20. American Psychological Association. (2011a). Author and reviewers resource center. http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/homepage.html. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  21. American Psychological Association. (2011b). Journal statistics and operations data. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics.aspx. Accessed April 22, 2011.
  22. American Sociological Association. (n.d.). Confidential report to the editor. http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/ReportEditor.doc. Accessed April 21, 2011.
  23. American Sociological Association. (1999). American sociological association code of ethics (pp. 1–30). http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2011.
  24. American Sociological Association. (2009). Editors report for 2009. http://www.asanet.org/journals/editors_report_2009.cfm. Accessed April 21, 2011.
  25. American Sociological Review. (2011a). Resources for manuscript submission. http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal201969#tabview=manuscriptSubmission. Accessed April 23, 2011.
  26. American Sociological Review. (2011b). Transfer of copyright journal contributor publishing agreement. http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/societyimages/asr/ASR%20-%20TOC2.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2011.
  27. Anderson, N. (2007). Instructions to authors. American Psychologist. http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/submission.html. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  28. Anderson, N. (2011). Instructions to authors. American Psychologist. http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/submission.html. Accessed April 21, 2011.
  29. Anderson, M. S., Seashore, K., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Association of American Medical Colleges. (1994). Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study approach: A handbook for instructors. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges.Google Scholar
  31. Benos, D. J., Fabres, J., Farmer, J., Gutierrez, J. P., Hennessy, K., Kosek, D., et al. (2005). Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 59–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Bridgwater, C. A., Bornstein, P. H., & Walkenbach, J. (1981). Ethical issues and the assignment of credit. American Psychologist, 36, 524–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship part two: History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Columbia University. (n.d.). Responsible authorship and peer review, instruction module. http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  35. Committee on Professional Ethics. (2005). COPE policies and procedures. American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/ethics/cope_policies_and_procedures. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  36. Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. http://www.publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  37. DeVries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1483899/. Accessed April 20, 2011.Google Scholar
  38. Dorn, D. S., & Long, G. L. (1974). Brief remarks on the Association’s code of ethics. The American Sociologist, 9(February), 31–35.Google Scholar
  39. Frankel, M. F. (1996). Developing ethical standards for responsible research: Why? Form? Functions? Process? Outcomes? Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 832–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Institute of Medicine. (2002). Promoting integrity in research through education. In N. R. C. Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments, Institute of Medicine (Ed.), Integrity in scientific research (pp. 84–111). Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Research Council.Google Scholar
  41. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2009). ICMJE website. http://www.icmje.org/#author. Accessed April 26, 2011.
  42. Jacobs, J. A. (2005). Editors report for 2005, American Sociological Association. http://www2.asanet.org/footnotes/apr06/departments.html#Editorsreport. Accessed April 21, 2011.
  43. Johnson, D. W. (Ed.). (1981). Front matter. American Educational Research Journal, 18(1), i–vii.Google Scholar
  44. Levine, F. (2007). Council minutes. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 166.Google Scholar
  45. Macrina, F. L. (2011). Teaching authorship and publication practices in the biomedical and life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (this issue).Google Scholar
  46. Marwell, G. (Ed.). (1990). Front matter. American Sociological Review, 69(6), v. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28199002%2955%3A1%3C%3AFM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  47. Nagy, T. (2005). Ethics in plain English: An illustrative casebook for psychologists (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  48. National Academies. (2011). Online ethics center for engineering and research. http://www.onlineethics.org/. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  49. National Institutes of Health NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. (1992). Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training grants. NIH GUIDE, 21(43). November 27, 1992, P.T. 44. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not92-236.html. Accessed April 24, 2011.
  50. O’Sullivan, P., & Bebeau, M. J. (2004, April). Defining research integrity and conceptual frameworks for assessment. Symposium conducted at the AERA annual meeting, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  51. Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (ORI). (2009). Responsible conduct for research. http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/. Accessed April 24, 2011.
  52. Rhoades, L. (1981). A history of the American Sociological Association, 19051980 Chapter 8, growth and turmoil. http://www.asanet.org/about/association_history.cfm. Accessed April 26, 2011.
  53. Riesenberg, D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? Journal of the American Medical Association, 265(14), 1857–1857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rositch, K. J. (2005). A history of the American Sociological Association, 1981–2004 Chapter 1, the 1980s: Critical challenges and new resolve. http://www.asanet.org/about/Centennial_History_Index.cfm. Accessed May 26 2011.
  55. Rury, J. L., Ashton, P., & Algina, J. (Eds.). (1995). Front matter. American Educational Research Journal, 18(1), i–ix.Google Scholar
  56. Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Scheetz, M. D. (2001). Promoting integrity through “Instructions to Authors:” A preliminary analysis. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/instructions_authors.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  58. Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs: A think tank white paper. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  59. Spiegel, D., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1970). Assignment of publication credit: Ethics and practices of psychologists. American Psychologist, 35, 738–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Spier, R., & Bird, S. J. (Eds.). (2007). Instructions for authors. Science and Engineering Ethics. http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/11948. Accessed April 20, 2011.
  61. Strike, K. A., Anderson, M. S., Curren, R., van Geel, T., Pritchard, I., & Robertson, E. (2002). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association: Cases and commentary. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  62. Viadera, D. (2007). AERA stresses value of alternatives to ‘Gold Standard’. Education Week, 26(33), 12–13.Google Scholar
  63. Young, J. (2006). Microsoft Word’s hidden tags reveal once-anonymous peer reviewers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(33), A41.Google Scholar
  64. Zimbardo, P. (2002). American Psychologist task force report: Clarifying mission, coverage, communication, and review process. American Psychologist, 57(3), 213–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of DentistryUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the ProfessionsUniversity of St Thomas School of LawMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations