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

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

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

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

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

Authors and 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

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-020-09375-0

Keywords

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