Missing the Mark: A New Form of Honorary Authorship Motivated by Desires for Inclusion

  • Isis H. Settles
  • Sheila T. Brassel
  • Georgina M. Montgomery
  • Kevin C. Elliott
  • Patricia A. Soranno
  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

As scientific teams in academia have become increasingly large, interdisciplinary, and diverse, more attention has been paid to honorary authorship (i.e., giving authorship to those not making a significant contribution). Our study examined whether honorary authorship occurs because of the desire to include all or many team members. Interviews with project principal investigators (n = 6) and early-career project members (n = 6) from 6 interdisciplinary environmental science research teams revealed that principal investigators frequently employed inclusion-motivated honorary authorship but that this practice had some negative impacts on early-career team members with less power and status, thereby undermining true inclusion of those from underrepresented groups. We believe our findings are of import not only for environmental scientists, but also for scholars who are interested in issues of authorship decision-making regardless of disciplinary affiliation.

Keywords

Honorary authorship Inclusion Power and status Interdisciplinary research Research teams Environmental science 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Portions of this research were conducted while authors Isis Settles and Sheila Brassel were at Michigan State University. This research was supported by National Science Foundation grant SES-1449466 awarded to Kevin C. Elliott (PI), Kendra Spence Cheruvelil, Georgina M. Montgomery, Isis H. Settles, and Patricia A. Soranno; a National Science Foundation grant EF-1065786 to Patricia A. Soranno and Kendra Spence Cheruvelil; and the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch Project no. 176820 to Patricia A. Soranno. We thank Claire Gonyo for her assistance in designing the interview protocol and conducting the interviews and Kristen Mills for her assistance with coding the interviews. We thank NiCole Buchanan and Ann Austin for their comments on an earlier draft.

References

  1. Bear, J. B., & Woolley, A. W. (2011). The role of gender in team collaboration and performance. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 36, 146–153.  https://doi.org/10.1179/030801811X13013181961473 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borenstein, J., & Shamoo, A. E. (2015). Rethinking authorship in the era of collaborative research. Accountability in Research, 22, 267–283.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.968277 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bošnjak, L., & Marušić, A. (2012). Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics, 93, 751–763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 32, 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Team member functional background and involvement in management teams: Direct effects and the moderating role of power centralization. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 458–474.  https://doi.org/10.2307/30040638 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunderson, J. S., & Reagans, R. E. (2011). Power, status, and learning in organizations. Organization Science, 22, 1182–1194.  https://doi.org/10.1287/1100.0590 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chao, G. T., O'Leary-Kelly, A. M., Wolf, S., Klein, H. J., & Gardner, P. D. (1994). Organizational socialization: Its content and consequences. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 730–743.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.5.730 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheruvelil, K. S., Soranno, P. A., Weathers, K. C., Hanson, P. C., Goring, S. J., Filstrup, C. T., & Read, E. K. (2014). Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: The importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12, 31–38.  https://doi.org/10.1890/130001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Conn, V. S., Topp, R., Dunn, S. L., Hopp, L., Jadack, R., Jansen, D. A., et al. (2015). Science on a shoestring: Building nursing knowledge with limited funding. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 37, 1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914567059 Google Scholar
  10. da Silva, J. A. T., & Dobranszki, J. (2015). Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: Ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22, 1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3 Google Scholar
  11. Doorewaard, H., & Brouns, B. (2003). Hegemonic power processes in team-based work. Applied Psychology, 52, 106–119.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1464-0597.00126 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Elliott, K. C., Settles, I. H., Montgomery, G. M., Brassel, S., Cheruvelil, K. S., & Soranno, P. A. (2016). Honorary authorship practices in environmental science teams: Structural and cultural causes and solutions. Accountability in Research, 24, 80–98.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1251320 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T. (2010). Interpersonal stratification: Status, power, and subordination. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 941–982). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470561119.socpsy002026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flanagan, J. L. (2015). A comparison of the views of college of business deans and faculty on undeserved authorships. Journal of Education for Business, 90, 241–246.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1027163 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Geelhoed, R. J., Phillips, J. C., Fischer, A. R., Shpungin, E., & Gong, Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: An empirical investigation. Ethics & Behavior, 17, 95–115.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701378057 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Greenland, P., & Fontanarosa, P. B. (2012). Ending honorary authorship. Science, 337, 1019–1019.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224988 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hagen, N. T. (2008). Harmonic allocation of authorship credit: Source-level correction of bibliometric bias assures accurate publication and citation analysis. PLoS One, 3, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0004021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haynes, M. C., & Heilman, M. E. (2013). It had to be you (not me)! Women’s attributional rationalization of their contribution to successful joint work outcomes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 956–969.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213486358 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Janss, R., Rispens, S., Segers, M., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). What is happening under the surface? Power, conflict and the performance of medical teams. Medical Education, 46, 838–849.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2012.04322.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Joshi, A. (2014). By whom and when is women’s expertise recognized? The interactive effects of gender and education in science and engineering teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 59, 202–239.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839214528331 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kennedy, M. S., Barnsteiner, J., & Daly, J. (2014). Honorary and ghost authorship in nursing publications. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 46, 416–422.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12093 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kozlowski, S. W., & Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77–124.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15291006.2006.00030.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leca, I., & Vrânceanu, C. A. (2014). Multicultural teams: Moving from diversity to inclusion. Cross-Cultural Management Journal, 2, 361–368.Google Scholar
  24. Lirio, P., Lee, M. D., Williams, M. L., Haugen, L. K., & Kossek, E. E. (2008). The inclusion challenge with reduced-load professionals: The role of the manager. Human Resource Management, 47, 443–461.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.20226 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McGrath, J. E. (1964). Social psychology: A brief introduction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  26. McHugh, M. (2012). Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22, 276–282.  https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2012.031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McLeod, P. L., Lobel, S. A., & Cox, T. H. (1996). Ethnic diversity and creativity in small groups. Small Group Research, 27, 248–264.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496496272003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: Integration and directions for future research. The Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (2015). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2015 (NSF Special Report No. 15–311). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
  31. Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43, 527–558.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412453622 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sarsons, H. (2015). Gender differences in recognition for group work . Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  33. Shore, L. M., Randel, A. E., Chung, B. G., Dean, M. A., Ehrhart, K. H., & Singh, G. (2011). Inclusion and diversity in work groups: A review and model for future research. Journal of Management, 37, 1262–1289.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206310385943 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, D. G. (2015). Diversity's promise for higher education: Making it work. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Spelt, E. J., Biemans, H. J., Tobi, H., Luning, P. A., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in interdisciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21, 365–378.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-009-9113-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Street, J. M., Rogers, W. A., Israel, M., & Braunack-Mayer, A. J. (2010). Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1458–1465.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.01.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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, 1–7.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6128 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zucker, D. (2012). Developing your career in an age of team science. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 60, 779–784.  https://doi.org/10.2310/JIM.0b013e3182508317 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Isis H. Settles
    • 1
  • Sheila T. Brassel
    • 1
  • Georgina M. Montgomery
    • 2
  • Kevin C. Elliott
    • 3
  • Patricia A. Soranno
    • 4
  • Kendra Spence Cheruvelil
    • 5
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Lyman Briggs College and the Department of HistoryMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.Lyman Briggs College, the Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, and the Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  4. 4.Department of Fisheries and WildlifeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  5. 5.Department of Fisheries and Wildlife and Lyman Briggs CollegeMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations