The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains
We extend previous research by systematically investigating whether perceptions of scientific authorship vary between domains. Employing regulations for authorship of scientific journals as well as the Scientists Survey 2016 conducted by the German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW), we provide a comprehensive picture of perceptions of scientific authorship across domains from the perspective of the supply side (journals) as well as the demand side (researchers). We find considerable differences in the perception of authorship across disciplines on both sides. Hence, not only domain-specific “formal norms,” but also domain-specific statements about ideals can be observed with regard to scientific authorship. The results have important implications: in order to avoid that researchers in disciplines with much narrower definitions of authorship are disadvantaged when compared to their colleagues from disciplines that rely on broader authorship definitions, domain-specific perceptions of authorship should be taken into account when allocating funding and jobs.
KeywordsPerception of scientific authorship Co-Authorship Publication ethics Disciplinary cultures
Order of co-authors is alphabetical. The authors contributed equally to this manuscript. We would like to thank Kathrin Thomas and Theresa Kernecker for their helpful comments on previous drafts. We would also like to thank Jakob Kemper and Erik Wenker for their assistance with the coding of the regulations for authorship of scientific journals. Last but not least we would like to thank the anonymous reviewers as well as the participants of several conferences and workshops for their constructive and concise feedback.
- American Sociological Association. 1999. Code of Ethics and Policies and Procedures of the ASA Committee on Professional Ethics. http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf.
- Biagioli, Mario. 2003. Rights or rewards? Changing frameworks of scientific authorship. In Scientific authorship: credit and intellectual property in science, eds. Mario Biagioli, and Peter Louis Galison, 253–281. New York, Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Böhmer, Susan, Jörg Neufeld, Sybille Hinze, Christian Klode, and Stefan Hornbostel. 2011. Wissenschaftler-Befragung 2010: Forschungsbedingungen von Professorinnen und Professoren an deutschen Universitäten. iFQ-Working Paper (8).Google Scholar
- Cronin, Blaise. 2005. The hand of science. Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.Google Scholar
- CWTS Leiden Ranking. 2016. Indicators. http://www.leidenranking.com/information/indicators.
- De Solla Price, Derek John. 1986. Little Science, big science … and beyond. New York: Columbia University PressGoogle Scholar
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. 2013. Vorschläge zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis. Denkschrift. Empfehlungen der Kommission „Selbstkontrolle in der Wissenschaft“, 2nd edn.Google Scholar
- Elsevier. 2015. Ethics in Research & Publication: FACTSHEET: Authorship. https://www.publishingcampus.elsevier.com/pages/154/Colleges/College-of-Skills-Training/Resources-for-Skills-Training/Quick-Guides-and-Downloads.html.
- Flanagin, Annette, Lisa A. Carey, Phil B. Fontanarosa, Stephanie G. Phillips, Brian P. Pace, George D. Lundberg, and Drummond Rennie. 1998. Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals. JAMA 280(3): 222. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Glänzel, Wolfgang. 2002. Co-authorship patterns and trends in the sciences (1980-1998). A bibliometric study with implications for database indexing and search strategies. Library Trends 50: 461–473.Google Scholar
- Hanmer, Michael J., and Kerem Ozan Kalkan. 2013. Behind the Curve: Clarifying the Best Approach to Calculating Predicted Probabilities and Marginal Effects from Limited Dependent Variable Models. American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 263–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00602.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Havemann, Frank. 2009. Einführung in die Bibliometrie. Berlin: Gesellschaft für Wissenschaftsforschung e.V; Inst. für Bibliotheks- und Informationswiss. der Humboldt-Univ.Google Scholar
- Hwang, Seong Su, Hae Hiang Song, Jun Hyun Baik, So Lyung Jung, Seog Hee Park, Kyu Ho Choi, and Young Ha Park. 2003. Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: analysis of author contribution lists in research articles with multiple authors published in radiology. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Radiology 226(1): 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2261011255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Johann, David, and Jörg Neufeld. 2016. Performance-based allocation of funds, pressure to publish and publication strategies. Paper prepared for presentation at the 4S/EASST Conference, Barcelona.Google Scholar
- Kuther, T.L. 2008. Surviving graduate school in psychology: A pocket mentor. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- Malički, Mario, Ana Jerončić, Matko Marušić, and Ana Marušić. 2012. Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal. BMC Medical Research Methodology 12: 189. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Marušić, Ana, Tamara Bates, Ante Anić, and Matko Marušić. 2006. How the structure of contribution disclosure statements affects validity of authorship: A randomized study in a general medical journal. Current Medical Research and Opinion 22(6): 1035–1044. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079906X104885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mayer, Sabrina Jasmin. 2016. Trends and developments in authorship patterns in five Social Science disciplines from 1991 to 2014. Proceedings of the 21 st international conference on science and technology indicators.Google Scholar
- Mayuru, Amin, and Michael Mabe. 2000. Impact factors: use and abuse. Perspectives in Publishing 1(1): 1–6.Google Scholar
- Muthén, Linda K., and Bengt O. Muthén. 1998–2010. Mplus User’s Guide. Sixth Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- Neufeld, Jörg, and David Johann. 2018a. Wissenschaftlerbefragung 2016 - Datensatz. Hannover/Berlin: DZHW.Google Scholar
- Neufeld, Jörg, and David Johann. 2018b. Wissenschaftlerbefragung 2016 - Methodenbeschreibung und Fragebogen. Hannover/Berlin: DZHW.Google Scholar
- Riesenweber, Christina. 2014. Reputation, Wahrheit und Blind Peer Review. Eine systemtheoretische Perspektive auf anonymisierte Autorschaft als Qualitätssicherungsstandard der Wissenschaften. In Theorien und Praktiken der Autorschaft, eds. Matthias Schaffrick and Marcus Willand, 595–614. spectrum Literaturwissenschaft / spectrum Literature, vol. 47. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
- She Figures 2012. 2013. Gender in Research and Innovation. EUR, vol. 25617. Luxembourg: Publ. Off. of the Europ. Union.Google Scholar
- Šupak-Smolčić, Vesna, Ana Mlinarić, Dragana Antončić, Martina Horvat, Jelena Omazić, and Ana-Maria Šimundić. 2015. ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica. Biochemia Medica 25(3): 324–334. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2015.033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Taylor, Mike, and Gudmundur A. Thorisson. 2012. Fixing authorship – towards a practical model of contributorship. Research Trends (31).Google Scholar
- Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., and Judit Dobránszki. 2015. Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3.
- Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A., and Judit Dobranszki. 2016. Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 22(5): 1457–1472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wager, Elizabeth. 2007b. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed : Medscape General Medicine 9(3): 16.Google Scholar
- Waltman, Ludo. 2015. Citation impact indicators review. http://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02099. Accessed 5 January 2016.
- Whitley, Richard. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar