Skip to main content

Responsible Conduct of Research and Ethical Publishing Practices: A Proposal to Resolve ‘Authorship Disputes’ over Multi-Author Paper Publication

Abstract

Responsible conduct of research and ethical publishing practices are debatable issues in the higher education literature. The literature suggests that ‘authorship disputes’ are associated with multi-author paper publication and linked to ethical publishing practices. A few research studies argue authorship matters of a multi-author paper publication, but do not explain how to arrange author list meaningfully in a multi-author paper. How is a principal author of a multi-author paper to be decided? The literature also does not clarify whether language editor(s) could claim authorship for a research paper publication? The paper adopts qualitative methodology that subsumes descriptive, evaluative, and interpretative approaches to answer these questions. While answering these questions, the paper critically examines ‘authorship disputes’ and ‘types of authorship’ relating to research paper publication practices. At the end, the paper proposes a framework that would help to resolve authorship disputes over multi-author paper publication.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Anderson, C. (1992). Authorship: Writer’s cramp. Nature, 355(101). https://doi.org/10.1038/355101a Accessed 08 February 2020.

  2. Battisti, W. P., Wager, E., Baltzer, L., Bridges, D., Cairns, A., Carswell, C. I., Citrome, L., Gurr, J. A., Mooney, L. A., Moore, B. J., Peña, T., Sanes-Miller, C. H., Veitch, K., Woolley, K. L., Yarker, Y. E., & International Society for Medical Publication Professionals. (2015). Good publication practice for communicating company-sponsored medical research: GPPP3. Annals of Internal Medicine, 163(6), 461–464.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Belwalkar, B., & Toaddy, S. (2014). Authorship determination scorecard. http://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-determination-scorecard.pdf. Accessed 17 January 2016.

  5. Bennett, D. M., & Taylor, D. M. D. (2003). Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emergency Medicine, 15, 263–270.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Benos, D. J., Fabres, J., Farmer, J., Gutierrez, J. P., Hennessy, K., Kosek, D., Lee, J. H., Olteanu, D., Russell, T., Shaikh, F., & Wang, K. (2005). Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 59–74.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., Pearson, P., Vernon, B., & Rodgers, H. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ, 314, 1009–1012.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bošnjak, L., & Marušić, A. (2012). Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics, 93(3), 751–763.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Boyer, S., Takayoshi, I., Lefort, M., Malumbers-Olarte, J., & Schmidt, J. M. (2017). Percentage-based author contribution index: A universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 2(18), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Brown, R. J. C. (2006). Double anonymity and the peer review process. The Scientific World Journal, 6, 1274–1277.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Castelvecchi, D. (2015). Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors. Nature. https://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567. Accessed 08 February 2020.

  12. Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship part two: History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Clement, T. P. (2014). Authorship matrix: A rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 345–361.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2019). Promoting integrity in research and its publication. COPE discussion document: Authorship. http://www.publicationethics.org. Accessed 08 February 2020.

  15. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Davis, M. (2001). Ethics and the university. New York: Routledge.

  17. 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: An International Journal, 1, 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Derntl, M. (2014). Basics of research paper writing and publishing. International Journal Technology Enhanced Learning, 6(2), 105–123.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship. The contribution of senior authors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Eisenberg, R. L., Ngo, L., Boiselle, P. M., & Bankier, A. A. (2011). Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: Assessment of frequency and associated factors. Radiology, 259(2), 479–486.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ellis, T. J., & Levy, Y. (2008). Framework of problem-based research: A guide for novice researchers on the development of a research-worthy proble. International Journal of Emerging Transdiscipline, 11, 17–33.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Engelder, T. (2007). The coupling between devaluation of writing in scientific authorship and inflation of citation indices. GSA Today, 17(7), 44–45.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Erlen, J. A., Siminoff, L. A., Sereika, S. M., & Sutton, L. B. (1997). Multiple authorship: Issues and recommendations. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(4), 262–270.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Frazzetto, G. (2004). Who did what? Uneasiness with the current authorship is prompting the scientific community to seek alternatives. EMBO Reports, 5(5), 446–448.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Genova, G., & Vara, J. L. (2019). The problem is not professional publishing, but the publish-or-perish culture. Science and Engineering Ethics, 25(2), 617–619.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Hama, Y., & Kusano, S. (2001). Geographic variation in the number of authors on scientific abstracts. Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal, 52, 25–28.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Harzing, A. W. (2010). The publish or perish book: Your guide to effective and responsible citation analysis (1st ed.). Melbourne: Tarma Software Research Pty Ltd..

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hunt, R. (1991). Trying an authorship index. Nature, 352(187).

  29. Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact. PLoS One, 3(7), e2778.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kent, S. C., & Wanzek, J. (2016). The relationship between component skills and writing quality and production across developmental levels: A meta-analysis of the last 25 years. Review of Educational Research, 86, 570–601.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Laurance, W.F. (2006). Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature, 442, 26.

  32. Leedy, P. D., & Ormrod, J. E. (2005). Practical research: Planning and design (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lexchin, J. (2012). Those who have the gold make the evidence: How the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 18(2), 247–261.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Loui, M. C. (2006). Commentary on an analytical hierarchy process model to apportion co-author responsibility. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 567–570.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lozano, G. A. (2014). Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20, 363–377.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Maronpot, R. R. (2011). Responsible authorship and publication practices. Toxicologic Pathology, 39, 1029–1031.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Marusic, A., Bosnjak, L., & Jeroncic, A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One, 6(9), e23477.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Matheson, A. (2011). How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship—And how they should be revised. PLoS Medicine, 8(8), e1001072.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Mc Nutt, M. K., Bradford, M., Drazen, J. M., Hanson, B., Howard, B., Jamieson, K. H., et al. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. PNAS, 115(11), 2557–2560.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McGillivray, B., & Ranieri, E. D. (2018). Uptake and outcome of manuscripts on nature journals by review model and author characteristics. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(5), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Mowatt, G., Shirran, L., Grimshaw, J. M., Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., Yank, V., MacLennan, G., Gotzsche, P. C., & Bero, L. A. (2002). Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA, 287, 2769–2771.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Papatheodorou, S. I., Trikalinos, T. A., & Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008). Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(6), 546–551.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Pignatelli, B., Maisonneuve, H., & Chapuis, F. (2005). Authorship ignorance: Views of researchers in French clinical settings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 578–581.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Poder, E. (2010). Let’s correct that small mistake. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61(12), 2593–2594.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Puljak, L., & Sambunjak, D. (2020). Can authorship be defined for contract work? Science and Engineering Ethics, 26, 1031–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-019-00173-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Rahman, L., & Muirhead-Allwood, S. K. (2010). How many orthopedic surgeons does it take to write a research article? 50 years of authorship proliferation in and internationalization of the orthopedic surgery literature. Orthopedics, 33(7), 478.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Rennie, D. (2001). Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle & Nerve, 24(10), 1274–1277.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(7), 579–585.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Yank, V. (2000). The contributions of authors. JAMA, 2000(284), 89–91.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics Behavior, 15, 65–80.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Seeman, J. I., & House, M. C. (2010). Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability in Research, 17(4), 176–197.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sethy, S. S. (Ed.). (2018). Higher education and professional ethics: Roles and responsibilities of teachers. New Delhi: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sharma, A., & Rawat, N. (2018). Critical analysis of societal expectations from higher education teachers. In S. S. Sethy (Ed.), Higher education and professional ethics: Roles and responsibilities of teachers (pp. 161–182). New Delhi: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Smith, R. (1997). Authorship: Time for a paradigm shift? The authorship system is broken and may need a radical solution. British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 992.

    Google Scholar 

  55. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  56. 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 17 February 2018.

  57. Strange, K. (2008). Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology, 295, 567–575.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tarkang, E. E., Kweku, M., & Zotor, F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: A review article. Journal of Public Health in Africa, 8(723), 36–42.

    Google Scholar 

  59. The American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of ethics. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  60. The American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. https://www.apa.org/ethics/code/ethics-code-2017.pdf. Accessed 17th February 2020.

  61. The American Psychological Association. (2020). Tips for determining authorship credit: What is authorship and how is it determined? https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-paper. Accessed 12 February 2020.

  62. The American Psychological Association (APA). (2016). Section-5: Ethical standards in writing and publishing. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1952-03733-001. Accessed 22 February 2020.

  63. The British Educational Research Association. (2018). Ethical guidelines for educational research. https://www.bera.ac.uk/researchers-resources/publications/ethical-guidelines-for-educational-research-2018. Accessed 08 February 2020.

  64. The Council of Science Editors (2018). CSE’s white paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications, Wheat Ridge, Colorado, USA. https://druwt19tzv6d76es3lg0qdo7-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/CSE-White-Paper_2018-update-050618.pdf. Accessed 08 February 2020.

  65. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2019). Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html. Accessed 08 February 2020.

  66. The US National Institutes of Health (2019). Guidelines and policies for the conduct of research in the intramural research program at NIH. https://oir.nih.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/sourcebook/documents/ethical_conduct/guidelines-conduct_research.pdf. Accessed 08 February 2020.

  67. Tscharntke, T., Hochberg, M. E., Rand, T. A., Resh, V. H., & Krauss, J. (2007). Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications. PLoS Biology, 5(1), e18.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Warrender, J. M. (2016). A simple framework for evaluating authorial contributions for scientific publications. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22(5), 1419–1430.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Welsh, R. K., Lareau, D. R., Clevenger, J. K., & Reger, M. A. (2008). Ethical and legal considerations regarding disputed authorship with the use of shared data. Accountability in Research, 15, 105–131.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Satya Sundar Sethy.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sethy, S.S. Responsible Conduct of Research and Ethical Publishing Practices: A Proposal to Resolve ‘Authorship Disputes’ over Multi-Author Paper Publication. J Acad Ethics 18, 283–300 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09375-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Authorship disputes
  • Research paper publication
  • Multidisciplinary research
  • Language editing services
  • Multi-author paper
  • Ethical publishing practices