Abstract
Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague’s work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague’s research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers’ wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, A. (2000). Reflections on the future of sociology. Contemporary Sociology, 29(2), 296–300. https://doi.org/10.2307/2654383.
Ahmed, H. S., Hadi, A., & Choudhury, N. (2010). Authorship conflict in Bangladesh: An exploratory study. Learned Publishing, 23(4), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1087/20100406.
Akhabue, E., & Lautenbach, E. (2010). “Equal” contributions and credit: An emerging trend in the characterization of authorship. Annals of Epidemiology, 20(11), 868–871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.08.004.
Andersen, H. (2016). Collaboration, interdisciplinarity, and the epistemology of contemporary science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 56(Supplement C), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2015.10.006.
Anderson, M. S., Martinson, B. C., & Vries, R. D. (2007a). Normative dissonance in science: Results from a national survey of US scientists. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(4), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2007.2.4.3.
Anderson, M. S., Ronning, E. A., De Vries, R., & Martinson, B. C. (2007b). The perverse effects of competition on scientists’ work and relationships. Science and Engineering Ethics, 13(4), 437–461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-007-9042-5.
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.
Bebeau, M. J., & Monson, V. (2011). Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: Historical reflections on current practices. Science and Engineering Ethics, 17(2), 365–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4.
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.
Bosch, P. J. (2012). A comparison of authorship policies at top-ranked peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Archives of Internal Medicine, 172(1), 70–72. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2011.600.
Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. Cambridge: Polity.
Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Assessing research collaboration studies: A framework for analysis. In Research collaboration and team science (pp. 1–11). Cham.: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06468-0_1.
Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3.
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 October 9, 2013.
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.
Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
De Vries, 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. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43.
Dyck, M. J. (2012). Misused honorary authorship is no excuse for quantifying the unquantifiable. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100939.
Enserink, M. (2014). Sabotaged scientist sues Yale and her lab Chief. Science, 343(6175), 1065–1066. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.343.6175.1065.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0005738.
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.
Henriksen, D. (2016). The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013). Scientometrics, 107(2), 455–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1849-x.
Kohut, A., Keeter, S., Doherty, C., Dimock, M., & Christian, L. (2012). Assessing the representativeness of public opinion surveys. Washington DC: The Pew Center Research.
Kukla, R. (2012). “Author TBD”: Radical collaboration in contemporary biomedical research. Philosophy of Science, 79(5), 845–858. https://doi.org/10.1086/668042.
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., 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.
Larivière, V., Ni, C., Gingras, Y., Cronin, B., & Sugimoto, C. (2013). Global gender disparities in science. Nature, 504(7479), 211–213.
Lincoln, A. E., Pincus, S., Koster, J. B., & Leboy, P. S. (2012). The Matilda effect in science: Awards and prizes in the US, 1990s and 2000s. Social Studies of Science, 42(2), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312711435830.
Macaluso, B., Larivière, V., Sugimoto, T., & Sugimoto, C. R. (2016). Is science built on the shoulders of women? A study of gender differences in contributorship. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1136–1142. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001261.
Maher, B. (2010). Research integrity: Sabotage! Nature News, 467(7315), 516–518. https://doi.org/10.1038/467516a.
Manton, E. J., & English, D. E. (2006). Reasons for co-authorship in business Journals and the extent of guest or gift authorships. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 48(2), 86–95.
Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., Crain, A. L., & De Vries, R. (2006). Scientists’ perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 51–66. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.51.
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.
Massey, D. S., & Tourangeau, R. (2013). Where do we go from here? Nonresponse and social measurement. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 645(1), 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716212464191.
Master, Z., Martinson, B. C., & Resnik, D. B. (2018). Expanding the scope of research ethics consultation services in safeguarding research integrity: Moving beyond the ethics of human subjects research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(1), 55–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1401167.
Master, Z., Smith, C., Campo-Engelstein, L., Smith, E., Midura, D., Larivière, V., et al. (forthcoming). Authorship challenges, misbehaviors and ethical conduct: The perceptions of researchers working in multidisciplinary teams on authorship and publication ethics.
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.
Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: Disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900204.
Mutz, R., Bornmann, L., & Daniel, H.-D. (2012). Does gender matter in grant peer review? Zeitschrift für Psychologie, 220(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000103.
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.
O’Brien, J., Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., & Noble, J. (2009). Honorary coauthorship: Does it matter? Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 60(5), 231–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carj.2009.09.001.
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.
Petersen, A. M., Majeti, D., Kwon, K., Ahmed, M. E., & Pavlidis, I. (2018). Cross-disciplinary evolution of the genomics revolution. Science Advances. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat4211.
Petersen, A. M., Pavlidis, I., & Semendeferi, I. (2014). A quantitative perspective on ethics in large team science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(4), 923–945. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9562-8.
Rasmussen, E. (2008). Government instruments to support the commercialization of university research: Lessons from Canada. Technovation, 28, 506–517.
Rossiter, M. W. (1993). The Matthew Matilda effect in science. Social Studies of Science, 23(2), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631293023002004.
Salganik, M. J. (2017). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sauermann, H., & Haeussler, C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosures. Science Advances, 3(11), e1700404.
Sax, L. J., Gilmartin, S. K., & Bryant, A. N. (2003). Assessing response rates and nonresponse bias in web and paper surveys. Research in Higher Education, 44(4), 24.
Shen, H. (2013). Inequality quantified: Mind the gender gap. Nature News, 495(7439), 22. https://doi.org/10.1038/495022a.
Smith, G. (2008). Does gender influence online survey participation? A record-linkage analysis of university faculty online survey response behavior. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 501717.
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., & Boulanger, R. (2011). What about author order and acknowledgments? Suggestions for additional criteria for conceptual research in bioethics. The American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 24–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2011.603813.
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.
Tarnow, E. (1999). The authorship list in science: Junior physicists’ perceptions of who appears and why. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 73–88.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2015). Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: Ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3.
Teixeira da Silva, J. A., & Dobránszki, J. (2016). How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM Publishers. Accountability in Research, 23(2), 97–122. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2015.1047927.
Tourangeau, R., Plewes, T. J., Council, National Research, & National Research Council (U.S.) (Eds.). (2013). Nonresponse in social science surveys: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
van Arensbergen, P., van der Weijden, I., & van den Besselaar, P. (2012). Gender differences in scientific productivity: A persisting phenomenon? Scientometrics, 93(3), 857–868. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0712-y.
Viswesvaran, C., & Ones, D. S. (2002). Examining the construct of organizational justice: A meta-analytic evaluation of relations with work attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Business Ethics, 38(3), 193–203.
Wagner, C. S. (2005). Six case studies of international collaboration in science. Scientometrics, 62(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-005-0001-0.
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.
Weeks, W. B., Wallace, A. E., & Kimberly, B. C. S. (2004). Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals. Social Science and Medicine, 59(9), 1949–1954. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.029.
White, A. H., Coudret, N. A., & Goodwin, C. S. (1998). From authorship to contributorship: Promoting integrity in research publication. Nurse Educator, 23(6), 26.
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(oct25), d6128. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128.
Witze, A. (2016). Research gets increasingly international. Nature News. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.19198.
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
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 a 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. Data analysis was conducted by ES, MS and DBR. The paper was drafted by ES. All authors revised the paper and contributed substantially to the final draft of the manuscript. Authorship order was decided at the beginning of the paper and then 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. The authors agree on the final order of authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest related to the content of this study.
Ethical Approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee of the authors, and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed Consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Questions Used for Analysis
Questions Used for Analysis
Title: Study on the Ethics of Authorship in Research Groups
Note: These questions are part of a larger study on authorship and acknowledgement ethics. Only specific questions that were used during the analysis of the manuscript have been included.
Definition of authorship naming: the inclusion of different contributors as authors in a research publication.
Have you ever encountered disagreement regarding authorship naming?
-
Yes (1)
-
No (2)
-
I am not sure (3)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip Next Section, If I am not sure Is Selected, Then Skip to Next Section
How often do you have disagreements regarding authorship naming in your research collaborations?
-
Rarely (1)
-
Less than half of the time (2)
-
About half the time (3)
-
Most of the time (4)
-
Always (5)
What factors caused or contributed to disagreements among team members? (Select all that apply.)
-
Differing disciplinary practices (1)
-
Different ways of valuing or measuring the importance of contribution (2)
-
Confusion or lack of clarity regarding authorship definitions (3)
-
Differing values (4)
-
Differing ethics (5)
-
Difference between the team’s authorship practices and those of the journal (6)
-
Lack of agreement within the team (7)
-
Other (please specify) (8) ____________________
Have you observed any of the following behaviors from scholars as a result of an authorship naming disagreement? (Select all that apply)
-
Being hostile towards colleagues (1)
-
Undermining the work of colleagues during group meetings/talks (2)
-
Cutting corners on research to compete with a colleague (3)
-
Sabotaging someone’s research (4)
-
Producing fraudulent research to compete with or undermine the results of a colleague (5)
-
Limiting further collaboration (6)
-
Other (please specify) (7) ____________________
-
No specific behavior has been observed (8)
Have you ever engaged in any of the following behaviors as a result of an authorship naming disagreement? (Select all that apply.)
-
Being hostile towards colleagues (1)
-
Undermining the work of colleagues during group meetings/talks (2)
-
Cutting corners on research to compete with a colleagues (3)
-
Sabotaging someone’s research (4)
-
Producing fraudulent research to compete with or undermine the results of a colleague (5)
-
Limiting further collaboration (6)
-
Other (please specify) (7) ____________________
-
I have not engaged in any specific behavior (8)
Definition of authorship ordering: The order in which authors are named on a research publication.
Have you ever encountered disagreement regarding author order?
-
Yes (1)
-
No (2)
-
I am not sure (3)
If No Is Selected, Then Skip Next Section, If I am not sure Is Selected, Then Skip to Next Section
How often do you have disagreements regarding authorship ordering in your research collaborations?
-
Rarely (1)
-
Less than half of the time (2)
-
About half the time (3)
-
Most of the time (4)
-
Always (5)
What factors have caused or contributed to disagreement in author order among team members? (Select all that apply.)
-
Differing disciplinary practices (1)
-
Differing ways of valuing or measuring the importance of contribution (2)
-
Confusion and lack of clarify (e.g., process, criteria) (3)
-
Differing values (4)
-
Differing ethics (5)
-
Differences between the team’s authorship practices and those of the journal (6)
-
Lack of discussion and agreement within the team (7)
-
Other (please specify) (8) ____________________
Have you observed any of the following behaviors from scholars as a result of an author order disagreement? (Select all that apply.)
-
Being hostile towards colleagues (1)
-
Undermining the work of colleagues during group meetings/talks (2)
-
Cutting corners on research to compete with a colleague (3)
-
Sabotaging someone’s research (4)
-
Producing fraudulent research to compete with or undermine the results of a colleague (5)
-
Limiting further collaboration (6)
-
Other (please specify) (7) ____________________
-
No specific behavior has been observed (8)
Have you engaged in any of the following behaviors from scholars as a result of an author order disagreement? (Select all that apply.)
-
Being hostile towards colleagues (1)
-
Undermining the work of colleagues during group meetings/talks (2)
-
Cutting corners on research to compete with a colleague (3)
-
Sabotaging someone’s research (4)
-
Producing fraudulent research to compete with or undermine the results of a colleague (5)
-
Limiting further collaboration (6)
-
Other (please specify) (7) ____________________
-
I have not engaged in any specific behavior (8)
What is your present role/rank? (Select all that apply.)
-
Bachelor’s student (1)
-
Master’s student (2)
-
Doctoral student or candidate (3)
-
Postdoctoral fellow (5)
-
Lecturer (teaching graduate or undergraduate courses)
-
Technician or technician assistant (e.g., statistician, laboratory assistant) (7)
-
Research assistant (8)
-
Research associate (at public or private institution) (6)
-
Senior researcher (at public or private institution)
-
Assistant professor (9)
-
Associate professor (10)
-
Full professor (11)
-
Emeritus professor (12)
-
Other (please specify) (13) ____________________
What is your gender?
-
Male (1)
-
Female (2)
-
Other (3)
-
I prefer not to answer (4)
What is your area(s) of study? (Select all that apply.)
-
Social Sciences (1)
-
Humanities (2)
-
Medical Sciences (3)
-
Natural Sciences and Engineering (4)
-
Other (please specify) (5) ________
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Smith, E., Williams-Jones, B., Master, Z. et al. Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science. Sci Eng Ethics 26, 1967–1993 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4