Policies and perspectives on authorship

Authorship on publications has been described as a “meal ticket” for researchers in academic settings. Given the importance of authorship, inappropriate publication credit is a pertinent ethical issue. This paper presents an overview of authorship problems and policies intended to address them. Previous work has identified three types of inappropriate authorship practices: plagiarism, giving unwarranted credit and failure to give expected credit. Guidelines from universities, journals and professional organizations provide standards about requirements of authors and may describe inappropriate practices; to a lesser extent, they provide guidance for determining authorship order. While policies on authorship may be helpful in some circumstances, they are not panaceas. Formal guidelines may not address serious power imbalances in working relationships and may be difficult to enforce in the face of particular departmental or institutional cultures. In order to develop more effective and useful guidelines, we should gain more knowledge about how students and faculty members perceive policies as well as their understanding of how policies will best benefit collaborators.     

Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies

While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate 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.     

Ethics in Publication

This article describes ethical dilemmas in publication and provides recommendations for guidelines involving publication ethics. Counselors may be confronted with a variety of ethical dilemmas such as authorship issues, student-professor research, plagiarism, and other publication problems. The American Counseling Association's Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice (ACA, 1995) provides only general information regarding publication ethics for counselors and researchers.     

Disregarded Conflicting Results with Prior Research: A Case Report in a Leading Biomedical Journal

Bibliographic negligence, i.e. omission of citation of the relevant work of other researchers, is possibly the most common type of research misconduct, leading to unfair loss of priority of authorship and undermining the reward system of science. We report a case of bibliographic negligence which we recently suffered from a leading biomedical journal. The case is discussed in the context of the editorial policy of the journal and of relevant ethical guidelines. Scientific journals should develop codes of conduct for citations. In addition, the implications and consequences of bibliographic negligence deserve thorough investigation.     

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.     

Ethical Issues and Guidelines for Conducting Data Analysis in Psychological Research

Psychologists are directed by ethical guidelines in most areas of their practice. However, there are very few guidelines for conducting data analysis in research. The aim of this article is to address the need for more extensive ethical guidelines for researchers who are post–data collection and beginning their data analyses. Improper data analysis is an ethical issue because it can result in publishing false or misleading conclusions. This article includes a review of ethical implications of improper data analysis and potential causes of unethical practices. In addition, current guidelines in psychology and other areas (e.g., American Psychological Association and American Statistical Association Ethics Codes) were used to inspire a list of recommendations for ethical conduct in data analysis that is appropriate for researchers in psychology.     

Overview: Underserved Areas of Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship

In February of 2007, the Responsible Conduct of Research Education Committee of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics convened a mini-conference at the Association’s annual meeting. The purpose of the mini-conference was to examine underserved areas of education in research ethics. The mini-conference consisted of panel discussions for two topics: authorship and social responsibility. Representatives from diverse academic disciplines were invited to participate in each of the two panels. This Special Section of Science and Engineering Ethics consists of the papers based on presentations in the authorship panel. The papers illustrate similarities and differences in authorship and publication practices in various disciplines including engineering, the life sciences, and the social sciences.     

Ethical issues in biomedical research: Perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey

We surveyed 1005 postdoctoral fellows by questionnaire about ethical matters related to biomedical research and publishing; 33% responded. About 18% of respondents said they had taken a course in research ethics, and about 31% said they had had a course that devoted some time to research ethics. A substantial majority stated willingness to grant other investigators, except competitors, access to their data before publication and to share research materials. Respondents’ opinions about contributions justifying authorship of research papers were mainly consistent but at variance with those of many biomedical journal editors. More than half said they had observed what they considered unethical research practices. To increase the chances of getting a grant funded, 27% said they were willing to select or omit data to improve their results; to make publication of their work more likely or to benefit their career, 15% would select or omit data and 32% would list an undeserving author. Of respondents who thought they had been unfairly denied authorship on a paper, or been listed with or asked to list an undeserving author, 75% said they would be willing to list an undeserving author (P<0.001). Having taken a course dealing with research ethics had no effect on stated willingness to select or omit data or to fabricate data in the future, but was positively associated with willingness to grant undeserved authorship (P<0.04). Although these results do not controvert research demonstrating the effectiveness of ethics courses during professional education, they indicate that the research environment is a powerful component of a trainee’s experience and ethical development. Preliminary results of this work were presented in part as a poster at the forumEthics, Values, and the Promise of Science, presented by Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society, 25–26 February 1993 in San Francisco, California, USA.     

Authorship Ethics: Issues and Suggested Guidelines for the Helping Professions

The authors review the literature and explore common ethical dilemmas related to publishing research. Varying standards are presented to assist professionals and students in their publication endeavors. Joint research collaboration in many graduate programs is encouraged and appears inevitable. Joint research activities may involve student–faculty collaboration or professional peer collaboration. Although many helping professions have ethics codes that address publication issues, there is no standard among them regarding the issue of authorship. Although it appears necessary to follow minimal codes of ethics regarding authorship, consideration of suggested guidelines and aspirational ethics may enhance the professional growth of mental health professionals and students in mental health programs.     

Generalizing on Best Practices in Image Processing: A Model for Promoting Research Integrity

Modifying images for scientific publication is now quick and easy due to changes in technology. This has created a need for new image processing guidelines and attitudes, such as those offered to the research community by Doug Cromey (Cromey 2010). We suggest that related changes in technology have simplified the task of detecting misconduct for journal editors as well as researchers, and that this simplification has caused a shift in the responsibility for reporting misconduct. We also argue that the concept of best practices in image processing can serve as a general model for education in best practices in research.     

Emotional engagement in the context of development and spirituality research

An awareness of spirituality and religion is increasingly being integrated within development theory and practice in order to recognise the way that many people approach community development. There are significant implications for researchers and their methodological practice that arise in paying attention to this area of development studies, particularly with regard to spiritual aspects of emotional engagement for researchers. This paper explores some of those implications from an analysis of my participatory research into geographies of development and spirituality. Two community groups with self-identified Christian spiritualities took part: a Melanesian settlement in Fiji and a women’s church-based group in rural Tanzania. I argue that emotional engagement and spiritual engagement are implicitly connected and demonstrate how attention to emotional knowledge provides valuable insight within this area of research. In particular, I illustrate how a relational approach to emotional knowledge, inspired by the philosophic and psychoanalytic work of Luce Irigaray, is particularly suited to approaching human and spiritual relationships and resonates with key concerns within participatory and community development. Paying particular attention to the concept of fidelity and the spatiality of subjectivity within her work, this paper illustrates the challenge from Luce Irigaray’s work regarding the relational framing of emotional knowledge and the transformational potential implicit within all research relationships.     

Using a Two-Tier Test to Examine Taiwanese Graduate Students’ Misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research

The present study investigates Taiwanese graduate students’ general understanding and misunderstanding of Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). A total of 580 graduate students responded to the self-developed Responsible Conduct of Research Reasoning Test. The results reveal that, first, students did not have sufficient knowledge to reason why a particular instance of research (mis)conduct was doable or not. Second, the statistical results show that female students, students majoring in the humanities or the social sciences, doctoral-level students, and students with RCR-related training outperformed others. In addition, the misbehaviors that students judged relatively uncritically comprise the following nine categories: (a) seeing authorship as a property or power, (b) misinterpreting research coauthors’ responsibilities, (c) inaccurately conducting the informed-consent process, (d) fabricating and falsifying research data, (e) misinterpreting the correct citation of research sources, (f) holding vague concepts of self-plagiarism, (g) misinterpreting the Taiwan Copyright Act, (h) accepting duplicate-publication practices, and (i) accepting piecemeal publication practices. The present study discusses participative students’ major misunderstandings of actual RCR-related practices. The study also presents further implications and suggestions based on the findings.     

Survival skills and ethics training for graduate students: A graduate student perspective

Graduate students in the sciences must develop practical skills geared toward scientific survival and success. This is particularly true now, given the paucity of research funds and jobs. Along with more elementary skills, research ethics should be an integral part of students’ scientific training. Survival skills include research skills, communication skills, general efficiency, and preparation for post-graduate work. Ethics training covers guidelines for use of animal and human subjects, data treatment, disclosure, credit issues, conflicts of interest, and response to misconduct. The objective of this paper is to describe, from a graduate student’s perspective, the need for survival and ethics training in graduate programs and to raise both faculty and student awareness of the possibilities for explicit instruction of these skills. Many survival skills and ethical practices will be learned without explicit direction and some are already part of standard training; but, this is not the case for all students or for all skills, so specific instruction is a necessity. Research faculty can use their own experience to help students to develop the proficiencies they will need to succeed.     

Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?

The purpose of this article is to encourage and help inform active discussion of authorship policies among members of scientific societies. The article explains the history and rationale of the influential criteria for authorship developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, examines questions about those criteria that emerge from authorship policies adopted by several U.S. medical schools, and summarizes the arguments for replacing authorship with the contributor-guarantor model. Finally, it concludes with a plea for scientific societies to play a prominent role in the ongoing debates about authorship and the alternatives as part of their efforts to encourage ethical conduct among their members. Whether or not scientific societies develop authorship policies of their own, they should undertake vigorous educational efforts to keep their new members adequately informed about the importance of authorship practices in ethical scientific research and publication.