Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring
- First Online:
- 531 Downloads
Scholars and policy-makers have expressed concerns about the crediting of coauthors in research publications. Most such problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones. But our research shows that there is no consensus on “deserving” or on what type of contribution suffices for co-authorship award. Our study uses qualitative data, including interviews with 60 US academic science or engineering researchers in 14 disciplines in a set of geographically distributed research-intensive universities. We also employ data from 161 website posts provided by 93 study participants, again US academic scientists. We examine a variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co-author credit and unwarranted inclusion, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes. Determinants of outcomes include characteristics of disciplines and fields, institutional work culture, power dynamics and team-specific norms and decision processes.
KeywordsResearch collaboration Co-authorship Ghost authors Guest author Contributorship
- Anderson, D. M., & Slade, C. P. (2015). Managing institutional research advancement: Implications from a university faculty time allocation study. Research in Higher Education, 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11162-015-9376-9.
- Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
- Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K. et al. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056.
- Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.Google Scholar
- Council of Science Editors. (1999). White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/white_paper.cfm
- Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457.Google Scholar
- Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiasces. New York: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level”. Research Policy, 29(3), 1140–1670.Google Scholar
- Olson, G. M., Malone, T. W., & Smith, J. B. (Eds.). (2013). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
- Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
- ResearchGate Press Office. (2014). Peer review isn’t working—Introducing open review. Posted March 13, 2014 at https://news.researchgate.net/index.php?/authors/8-ResearchGate-Press-Office
- Smith, R. (2012). Let’s simply scrap authorship and move to contributorship. BMJ, 344.Google Scholar
- Tacke, O. (2011). Open science 2.0: How research and education can benefit from open innovation and Web 2.0. In On Collective Intelligence (pp. 37-48). Springer: Heidelberg.Google Scholar
- Zhou, W., Zou, Y., Zhu, Y., Fei, S., & Lu, X. (2012, September). Wiki lab: A collaboration-oriented scitentific research platform. In Electronic System-Integration Technology Conference (ESTC), 2012 4th (pp. 411-414). IEEE.Google Scholar