Time warp: Authorship shapes the perceived timing of actions and events

It has been proposed that inferring personal authorship for an event gives rise to intentional binding, a perceptual illusion in which one’s action and inferred effect seem closer in time than they otherwise would (Haggard, Clark, & Kalogeras, 2002). Using a novel, naturalistic paradigm, we conducted two experiments to test this hypothesis and examine the relationship between binding and self-reported authorship. In both experiments, an important authorship indicator – consistency between one’s action and a subsequent event – was manipulated, and its effects on binding and self-reported authorship were measured. Results showed that action-event consistency enhanced both binding and self-reported authorship, supporting the hypothesis that binding arises from an inference of authorship. At the same time, evidence for a dissociation emerged, with consistency having a more robust effect on self-reports than on binding. Taken together, these results suggest that binding and self-reports reveal different aspects of the sense of authorship.     

Authorship: The Hidden Voices of Postgraduate TEFL Students in Iran

Although an author is defined as someone who has made substantial contributions to a research study, sometimes power relations in student-supervisor collaborations play a more determining role in attribution of authorship. This article reflects the ideas of eight Iranian postgraduate Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) students about authorship policies and practices at their universities. The interview data indicate that the participants were not involved in authorship decisions and authorship credits were given based on their supervisors’ positions and seniority rather than their contribution to students’ research. The participants also described unfair authorship experiences affecting their motivation, interest in academia, self-confidence, etc. It is recommended that faculty members and policy-makers in TEFL programs in Iran engage in ongoing open discussions about authorship policies and decision-making with students to avoid creating negative feelings and unpleasant experiences for students which might lead to a legacy of unfair authorship practices.     

Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles

We propose a rational method for addressing an important question—who deserves to be an author of a scientific article? We review various contentious issues associated with this question and recommend that the scientific community should view authorship in terms of contributions and responsibilities, rather than credits. We propose a new paradigm that conceptually divides a scientific article into four basic elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. We employ these four fundamental elements to modify the well-known International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The modified ICMJE guidelines are then used as the basis to develop an approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author articles. The outcome of the approach is an authorship matrix, which can be used to answer several nagging questions related to authorship.     

Authorship: Few Myths and Misconceptions

This article seeks to address and dispel some of the popular myths and misconceptions surrounding authorship of a scientific publication as this is often misconstrued by beginners in academia especially those in the developing world. While ethical issues in publishing related to authorship have been increasingly discussed, not much has been written about the myths and misconceptions of who might be an author. Dispelling these myths and misconceptions would go a long way in shaping the thoughts and plans of students, junior faculty and researchers in academia especially in the developing world.     

An Ethical Decision‐Making Model to Determine Authorship Credit in Published Faculty–Student Collaborations

Publishing research is imperative to both counselor educators and students in counseling programs. Furthermore, faculty–student publication collaborations can often be a mutually beneficial professional endeavor. However, determining order of authorship can be a complex ethical issue. The authors review prior research to illustrate the complexities of authorship and suggest a decision‐making model and considerations for preventing and resolving these ethical dilemmas. Implications for counselors include future research studies on complex issues regarding authorship of faculty–student collaborations, future incidence studies investigating occurrence of ethics violations, and incorporation of publication ethics into course work in counselor education programs.     

Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association’s standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author’s ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.     

A Qualitative Exploration of Counselor Educators' Collaborative Authorship Perceptions and Practices

Limited research exists that examines the ethics of counselor educators' collaborative authorship practices. The study purpose was to explore the collaborative authorship decision-making perceptions and practices of counselor educators (N = 11). We identified six themes: (a) human process and communication, (b) context and nature of relationships, (c) learning experiences about authorship, (d) academic and career stage expectations, (e) collaborative authorship practices, and (f) philosophy of authorship. Implications and recommendations for research are discussed.     

Publication patterns in developmental psychology: Trends and social networks

Interest in publication patterns has been steady. Journals have instituted policies in an effort to curb bias and provide globally representative research. This study aimed to examine if publication patterns were present in two developmental psychology journals. It also explored the social networks of prominent authors and the prevalence of informal author–editor relationships, searching for any potential power groups. Data were taken from empirical articles published between 2005 and 2014 in Child Development (CD) and The International Journal of Early Childhood (IJEC) data points were geographical authorship affiliation, informal author relationships as established by co‐publishing, and connections to journal editors via identical affiliation. Results confirmed the previously established North American dominance in published research. In CD a strongly interlinked social network was identified between authors over the 10 years, with 15 chief influentialists binding groups of authors together. Results suggest that patterns are still present in published research in the realm of developmental psychology. To conclude, the potential implications of these patterns within developmental psychology are presented.     

Article Characteristics,Content, and Authorship in the Journal of Employment Counseling

This article is an analysis of general journal and article characteristics, content, and authorship for volumes 1 through 15 of the Journal of Employment Counseling, covering the years 1964 through 1978. It attempts to determine to what extent and in what ways the membership of the National Employment Counselors Association (NECA) is served by the Journal. The average length of the journal and its articles are noted as well as the number of authors and references per article. Each article is reviewed for content classification, authorship, and the author's institutional affiliation. The basic facts and overall publication trends are identified and discussed. It is noted that only a small proportion of published articles concerned Employment Service counseling techniques. The data in this article was originally prepared for the graduate course entitled “Psychology 411: Professional Problems in Psychology” at the University of Missouri-Columbia.     

Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors

The authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are widely accepted in biomedical journals, but many studies in large and prestigious journals show that a considerable proportion of authors do not fulfill these criteria. We investigated authorship contributions in a small medical journal outside the scientific mainstream, to see if poor adherence to authorship criteria is common in biomedical journals. We analyzed statements on research contribution, as checked by the corresponding author, for individual authors of 114 research articles, representing 475 authors, submitted to the Croatian Medical Journal (CMJ) from 1999 to 2000. Only 40% of authors fulfilled the ICMJE authorship criteria. The authors listed first on the by-line were more likely to fulfill the authorship criteria than all other authors on the by-line. The percentage of authors fulfilling the ICMJE criteria of authorship decreased with the increase in the number of authors listed on the by-line. These results indicate that poor adherence to ICMJE authorship criteria is poor across biomedical journals, regardless of the size of the scientific community. Authorship and contributorship in biomedical journals, as well as editorial ethical responsibilities towards authorship criteria need critical redefinition and education of both editors and authors.     

Reading from the middle: Heidegger and the narrative self

Heidegger's Being and Time is an underappreciated venue for pursuing work on the role narrative plays in self‐understanding and self‐constitution, and existing work misses Heidegger's most interesting contribution. Implicit in his account of Dasein (an individual human person) is a notion of the narrative self more compelling than those now on offer. Bringing together an adaptive interpretation of Heidegger's notion of “thrown projection”, Wolfgang Iser's account of “the wandering viewpoint”, and more recent Anglo‐American work on the narrative self, I argue that we read our ongoing existences in the same way that, mid‐story, we read a narrative. Reading is a better master metaphor than authorship, narration, plot, or character to guide investigations of narrative's relation to the self. It is not merely a metaphor, however, as the hermeneutic structures involved in interpreting existence and a narrative from the middle are the same.     

Recognizing Targets: Wittgenstein's Exploration of a New Kind of Foundationalism in On Certainty1

Bringing the views of Grayling, Moyal‐Sharrock and Stroll together, I argue that in On Certainty, Wittgenstein explores the possibility of a new kind of foundationalism. Distinguishing propositional language‐games from non‐propositional, actional certainty, Wittgenstein investigates a foundationalism sui generis. Although he does not forthrightly state, defend, or endorse what I am characterizing as a “new kind of foundationalism,” we must bear in mind that On Certainty was a collection of first draft notes written at the end of Wittgenstein's life. The work was unprogrammatic, sometimes cryptic. Yet, his exploration into areas of knowledge, certitude and doubt suggest an identifiable direction to his thoughts.     

Foucault and Derrida: The Question of Empowering and Disempowering the Author

This article focuses on Michel Foucault’s concepts of authorship and power. Jacques Derrida has often been accused of being more of a literary author than a philosopher or political theorist. Richard Rorty complains that Derrida’s views on politics are not pragmatic enough; he sees Derrida’s later work, including his political work, more as a “private self-fashioning” than concrete political thinking aimed at devising short-term solutions to problems here and now. Employing Foucault’s work around authorship and the origins of power, I show that Derrida is indeed fashioning himself. This self-fashioning is not merely private or fanciful. Rather, I argue that Derrida can be read as employing what Foucault would call “technologies of the self” to not only show the play of possibility and impossibility at work in all politics and thought, but also to use his savoir to create two important and potentially constructive power structures. First, there is the power of deconstruction itself as a “militant critique” that calls for a forceful and irreducible justice. Second, there is the power of Derrida himself, understood as leaving behind a legacy of himself as the “originator” of deconstruction and as a public intellectual.

Retraction statement: Staff,miter, book,share: how attributes of Saint Nicholas induce normative behavior

The following article from the European Journal of Social Psychology, “Staff, miter, book, share: how attributes of Saint Nicholas induce normative behavior” by Janneke F. Joly and Diederik A. Stapel, published online on 14 January 2008 in Wiley Online Library ( wileyonlinelibrary.com ), has been retracted by agreement between the co‐author, the journal Editor in Chief, Tom Postmes, and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been agreed upon following the results of an investigation into the work of Diederik A. Stapel ( https://www.commissielevelt.nl/ ). The Levelt Committee has determined that this article contained data that were fabricated by Diederik A. Stapel. His co‐author was unaware of his actions and not in any way involved. REFERENCE Jolly, J. F., & Stapel, D. A. (2009). Staff, miter, book, share: how attributes of Saint Nicholas induce normative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 145–153.     

Dyslexia,authorial identity,and approaches to learning and writing: A mixed methods study

Background. Dyslexia may lead to difficulties with academic writing as well as reading. The authorial identity approach aims to help students improve their academic writing and avoid unintentional plagiarism, and could help to understand dyslexic students’ approaches to writing. Aims. (1) To compare dyslexic and non‐dyslexic students’ authorial identity and approaches to learning and writing; (2) to compare correlations between approaches to writing and approaches to learning among dyslexic and non‐dyslexic students; (3) to explore dyslexic students’ understandings of authorship and beliefs about dyslexia, writing and plagiarism. Sample. Dyslexic (n= 31) and non‐dyslexic (n= 31) university students. Method. Questionnaire measures of self‐rated confidence in writing, understanding of authorship, knowledge to avoid plagiarism, and top‐down, bottom‐up and pragmatic approaches to writing (Student Authorship Questionnaire; SAQ), and deep, surface and strategic approaches to learning (Approaches and Study Skills Inventory for Students; ASSIST), plus qualitative interviews with dyslexic students with high and low SAQ scores. Results. Dyslexic students scored lower for confidence in writing, understanding authorship, and strategic approaches to learning, and higher for surface approaches to learning. Correlations among SAQ and ASSIST scores were larger and more frequently significant among non‐dyslexic students. Self‐rated knowledge to avoid plagiarism was associated with a top‐down approach to writing among dyslexic students and with a bottom‐up approach to writing among non‐dyslexic students. All the dyslexic students interviewed described how dyslexia made writing more difficult and reduced their confidence in academic writing, but they had varying views about whether dyslexia increased the risk of plagiarism. Conclusions. Dyslexic students have less strong authorial identities, and less congruent approaches to learning and writing. Knowledge to avoid plagiarism may be more salient for dyslexic students, who may benefit from specific interventions to increase confidence in writing and understanding of authorship. Further research could investigate how dyslexic students develop approaches to academic writing, and how that could be affected by perceived knowledge to avoid plagiarism.