Abstract
Guidelines on authorship requirements are common in biomedical journals but it is not known how authorship is defined by journals and scholarly professional organizations across research disciplines. Prevalence of authorship statements, their specificity and tone, and contributions required for authorship were assessed in 185 journals from Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 260 journals from Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and 651 codes of ethics from professional organizations from the online database of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Profession, USA. In SCI, 53 % of the top-ranked journals had an authorship statement, compared with 32 % in SSCI. In a random sample of A&HCI-indexed journals, only 6 % of the journals addressed authorship. Only 71 (11 %) codes of ethics carried a statement on authorship. Almost all journals had defined authorship criteria compared with 33 % of the ethics codes (\( \chi_{1}^{2} \) = 75.975; P < 0.001). The tone of the statements in the journals was aspirational, whereas ethics codes used a normative language for defining authorship (\( \chi_{1}^{2} \) = 51.709, P < 0.001). Journals mostly required both research and writing contributions for authorship, while two-thirds of the ethics codes defined only research as a mandatory contribution. In conclusion, the lack of and variety of authorship definitions in journals and professional organizations across scientific disciplines may be confusing for the researchers and lead to poor authorship practices. All stakeholders in research need to collaborate on building the environment where ethical behaviour in authorship is a norm.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Baerlocher, M. O., Newton, M., Gautam, T., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S. (2007). The meaning of author order in medical research. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 55(4), 174–180.
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.
Center for the Study of Ethics in the Profession, I. I. O. T., USA. (2011). Codes of Ethics Online. Retrieved 15 April, 2012, from http://ethics.iit.edu/research/codes-ethics-collection.
Davidoff, F., DeAngelis, C. D., Drazen, J. M., Hoey, J., Hojgaard, L., Horton, R., et al. (2001). Sponsorship, authorship, and accountability. Lancet, 358(9285), 854–856.
Davis, M. (1991). Thinking like an engineer—the place of a code of ethics in the practice of a profession. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 20(2), 150–167.
Elsevier. (2012) Products by subjects. Retrieved 18 April, 2012, from http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/subject_area_browse.cws_home?collapseAll=y&sh1State=0&allParents=y.
Fanelli, D. (2009). How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS ONE, 4(5), e5738.
Frandsen, T. F., & Nicolaisen, J. (2010). What is in a name? Credit assignment practices in different disciplines. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 608–617.
Harris, C. E. J., Pritchard, M. S., & Rabins, M. J. (1995). Engineering ethics: concepts and cases. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
Huth, E. J. (1983). Responsibilities of coauthorship. Annals of Internal Medicine, 99(2), 256–257. (editorial).
Ilakovac, V., Fister, K., Marusic, M., & Marusic, A. (2007). Reliability of disclosure forms of authors’ contributions. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 176(1), 41–46.
King, D. W., Tenopir, C., Choemprayong, S., & Wu, L. (2009). Scholarly journal information-seeking and reading patterns of faculty at five US universities. Learned Publishing, 22(2), 126–144.
Kyvik, S. (2003). Changing trends in publishing behaviour among university faculty, 1980–2000. Scientometrics, 58(1), 35–48.
Ladd, J. (1991). The quest for a code of professional ethics: An intellectual and moral confusion. In D. G. Johnson (Ed.), Ethical issues in engineering (pp. 130–136). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Linman, A. J. M. (2010). Why with bibliometrics the humanities does not need to be the weakest link. Indicators for research evaluation based on citations, library holdings, and productivity measures. Scientometrics, 83(2), 337–354.
Lissoni, F., & Montobbio, F. (2008). Inventorship and authorship in patent-publication pairs: an enquiry into the economics of scientific credit. Milano: Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi. Retrieved 1 April, 2011, from http://portale.unibocconi.it/wps/wcm/connect/resources/file/ebc99203e5ce5c1/Lissoni_Montobbio_wp224.pdf.
Louis, K. S., Holdsworth, J. M., Anderson, M. S., & Campbell, E. G. (2008). Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences. Journal of Higher Education, 79(1), 88–112.
Maciejovsky, B., Budescu, D. V., & Ariely, D. (2009). The researcher as a consumer of scientific publications: How do name-ordering conventions affect inferences about contribution credits? Marketing Science, 28(3), 589–598.
Marcovitch, H. (2009). Committee on publication ethics flow charts on suspected publication misconduct. Maturitas, 62(3), 208–224.
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.
Marusic, A., Katavic, V., & Marusic, M. (2007). Role of editors and journals in detecting and preventing scientific misconduct: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Medicine and Law, 26(3), 545–566.
Matheson, A. (2011). How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship—and how they should be revised. PLoS Med, 8(8), e1001072.
Nederhof, A. J. (2006). Bilbiometric monitoring of research performance in the social sciences and humanities: A review. Scientometrics, 66(1), 81–100.
Nederhof, A. J., & Zwaan, R. A. (1991). Quality judgments of journals as indicators of research performance in the humanities and the social and behavioural sciences. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 42(5), 332–340.
Pignatelli, B., Maisonneuve, H., & Chapuis, F. (2005). Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(10), 578–581.
Rose, M. (1999). What professionals expect: Scientific professional organizations’ statements regarding authorship. In C. J. Manson, Geoscience Information Society (Eds.), Science editing & information management, Proceedings of the Second International AESE/CBE/EASE Joint Meeting, Sixth International Conference on Geoscience Information and Thirty-second Annual Meeting, Association of Earth Science Editors; 1998 Sep 10–22 Washinton DC (pp. 15–22). Alexandria, VA: Geoscience Information Society.
Steneck, N. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.
Thompson, J. W. (2002). The death of the scholarly monograph in the humanities? Citation patterns in literary scholarship. Libri, 52(3), 121–136.
Trueba, F. J., & Guerrero, H. (2004). A robust formula to credit authors for their publications. Scientometrics, 60(2), 181–204.
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 (letter).
Uddin, S., Hossain, L., Abbasi, A., & Rasmussen, K. (2012). Trend and efficiency analysis of co-authorship network. Scientometrics, 90(2), 687–699.
Wager, E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? MedGenMed, 9(3), 16.
Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship: The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. JAMA, 280(3), 216–217.
Wiley-Blackwell. (2012a). All humanities journals. Retrieved 18 April, 2012, from http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-350748.html?&view=JournalSpotlight.
Wiley-Blackwell. (2012b). All life sciences Journals. Retrieved 18 April, 2012, from http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-350748.html?&view=JournalSpotlight.
Acknowledgments
This study was funded by a research grant from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The sponsor had no role in the study, including data collection and analysis, manuscript preparation or authorization for publication.
Conflict of interest
AM is the editor in chief of a general medical journal, member of COPE.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bošnjak, L., Marušić, A. Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 93, 751–763 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y