RESUMEN

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Because peer review publication is essential for academic advancement across scientific fields, when authorship is wrongly attributed the consequences can be profound, particularly for junior researchers who are still establishing their professional norms and scientific reputations. Professional societies have published guidelines for authorship, yet authorship dilemmas frequently arise and have harmful consequences for scientific careers. Researchers have noted the complexities of authorship and called for new mechanisms to foster more ethical research cultures within institutions. To address this call, we organized a panel discussion at the Institute for Clinical Research Education at the University of Pittsburgh in which senior faculty members from diverse backgrounds and professional disciplines discussed their own authorship challenges (e.g., renegotiating author order, reconciling inter-professional authorship norms, managing coauthor power differentials) and offered strategies to avoid and/or resolve them. Informed by growth mind-set theory, our storytelling format facilitated an open exchange between senior and junior researchers, situated authorship dilemmas in specific contexts and career stages, and taught researchers how to address authorship challenges not adequately informed by guideline recommendations. Though not empirically assessed, we believe this approach represents a simple, low-cost, and replicable way to cultivate ethical and transparent authorship practices among researchers across scientific fields.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Resumen Definir la autoría en artículos y documentos científicos es un proceso esencial y complejo, que encierra subjetividad y depende de convenios establecidos en general de palabra, lo que puede ocasionar conflictos entre los investigadores. Se han publicado algunas guías con lineamientos generales para mejorar esta práctica, sin embargo son pocos los procedimientos cuantitativos para precisar autoría y coautoría de un escrito científico, y no hay consenso para definir los autores y el orden en que deben aparecer. Con este artículo intentamos rescatar algunos criterios y consideraciones para determinar el listado de autores en textos científicos.

Abstract Defining authorship in scientific articles and documents is an essential and complex process that involves subjectivity and depends on largely informal agreements, which may cause conflict among researchers. Although some guidelines have been published to improve this practice, there are few quantitative procedures in the literature to specify authorship and co-authorship of a scientific paper, and there is no consensus on the definition of authors and the order in which they should be listed. With this article we try to review a few criteria and considerations for determining author lists in scientific articles.

Resumo Definir a autoria de artigos e documentos científicos é um processo essencial e complexo, que envolve subjetividade e depende de acordos quase sempre informais, o que pode causar conflitos entre pesquisadores. Algumas diretrizes foram publicadas para aperfeiçoar esta prática, mas ainda são poucos os procedimentos quantitativos para estabelecer a autoria e a coautoria de textos científicos, e não há consenso para definir os autores e a ordem em que devem aparecer. Com este artigo, visamos recapitular alguns critérios e considerações para determinar a ordem de autoria em artigos científicos.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: The purposes of this study were to (a) assess the prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in 10 leading peer-reviewed nursing journals between 2010 to 2012; (b) compare the results to prevalence reported by authors of articles published in high-impact medical journals; and (c) assess the experiences of editors in the International Academy of Nursing Editors with honorary and guest authorship. METHODS: Corresponding authors of articles published in 10 nursing journals between 2010 and 2012 were invited to complete an online survey about the contributions of coauthors to see if the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors () criteria for authorship were met. Additionally, members of the International Academy of Nursing Editors were invited to complete an online survey about their experiences in identifying honorary or ghost authors in articles submitted for publication. FINDINGS: The prevalence of articles published in 10 nursing journals with honorary authors was 42%, and the prevalence of ghost authorship was 27.6%. This is a greater prevalence than what has been reported among medical journals. Qualitative data yielded five themes: lack of awareness around the rules for authorship; acknowledged need for debate, discussion, and promotion of ethical practice; knowingly tolerating, and sometimes deliberately promoting, transgressions in practice; power relations and expectations; and avoiding scrutiny. Among the 60 respondents to the editor survey, 22 (36.7%) reported identifying honorary authors and 13 (21.7%) reported ghost authors among papers submitted to their publications. CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate authorship is a significant problem among scholarly nursing publications. RELEVANCE: If nursing scholarship is to maintain integrity and be considered trustworthy, and if publications are to be a factor in professional advancement, editors, nursing leaders, and faculty need to disseminate and adhere to ethical authorship practices.

Asunto(s)