Authorship criteria and the problem of its attribution in scholarly papers
https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2019-12-5-24
Abstract
A complication of academic research, the emergence of new subject areas at the intersection of different scientific disciplines, increase in international collaboration are accompanied by an increase in the number of co-authors resulting in the problem of author attribution requiring the development of new approaches to detecting authors’ roles and formation of new authorship criteria. The solution of the problem of authorship attribution should specify actual contribution of the scientist to preparing research and the paper, distinguish areas of responsibility of co-authors, and enable certain researchers to accumulate their own reputation capital. The current study presents a review of Russian and foreign approaches for solving this problem including the development of new sections in articles for naming persons who do not match authorship criteria and introduction of models of sequence order of authors. The paper also traces the main stages in the development of authorship criteria, describes the advantages and disadvantages of authorship model as compared to new contributorship model. Transition to the fractional calculation of the contribution of each participant of a research paper is believed to be promising implying significance of the author’s position in the byline and an increased role of paper sections describing the specific contribution of each author.
About the Authors
V. N. Gureev
A. A. Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, SB RAS;
State Public Scientific and Technological Library, SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vadim Gureev, Cand. Sc. (Pedagogy), Senior Researcher, Information and Library Center, A. A. Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch; Senior Researcher, State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch
3, acad. Koptyg pr., 630200 Novosibirsk
N. A. Mazov
A. A. Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Geophysics, SB RAS;
State Public Scientific and Technological Library, SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nikolay Mazov, Cand. Sc. (Technology), Leading Researcher, Head, Information and Library Center, A. A. Trofimuk Institute of Petroleum Geology and Gepphysics of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch; Leading Researcher, State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch
3, acad. Koptyg pr., 630200 Novosibirsk
I. G. Lakizo
State Public Scientific and Technological Library, SB RAS
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Irina Lakizo, Researcher, State Public Scientific and Technological Library of the Russian Academy of Sciences Siberian Branch
15, Voskhod st., 630200 Novosibirsk
References
1. Olesen A., Amin L., Mahadi Z. Unethical authorship practices: A qualitative study in Malaysian higher education institutions // Developing World Bioethics. – 2018. – V. 18. – № 3. – P. 271–278. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12200.
2. Dang W., McInnes M. D. F., Kielar A. Z., Hong J.H. A Comprehensive Analysis of Authorship in Radiology Journals // Plos One. – 2015. – V. 10. – № 9. – P. 15. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0139005.
3. Mazov N. A., Gureyev V. N. Publications at any costs // Vestn. Ros. Akad. Nauk. – 2015. – V. 85. – № 7. – P. 627–631. – URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.7868/S0869587315050072.
4. Chew F. S. Coauthorship in radiology journals // American Journal of Roentgenology. – 1987. – V. 150. – № 1. – P. 23–26.
5. Moiseenko V. V., Rodionov A. S. Age dependance of co-authorship when carrying out scientific studies in academic organization // Problems of Informatics. – 2017. – № 1 (34). – P. 62–73.
6. Gasparyan A. Y., Ayvazyan L., Kitas G. D. Authorship problems in scholarly journals: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors // Rheumatology International. – 2013. – V. 33. – № 2. – P. 277–284. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2582-2.
7. Goudsmit S. A. Editorial // Physical Review Letters. – 1962. – V. 8. – № 6. – P. 229–230. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.8.229.
8. Davenport E., Cronin B. Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship // Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. – 2001. – V. 52. – № 9. – P. 770–773. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.1123.
9. Wagner-Dobler R. Continuity and discontinuity of collaboration behaviour since 1800 – from a bibliometric point of view // Scientometrics. – 2001. – V. 52. – № 3. – P. 503–517. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014208219788.
10. Sampson Z. J. 40-years of the physical-review and physical-review letters // Scientometrics. – 1995. – V. 32. – № 2. – P. 219–226. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02016895.
11. Zuckerman H. A. Patterns of Name Ordering Among Authors of Scientific Papers: A Study of Social Symbolism and Its Ambiguity // American Journal of Sociology. – 1968. – V. 74. – № 3. – P. 276–291. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1086/224641.
12. Piternick A. B. Traditional Interpretations of "Authorship" and "Responsibility" in the Description of Scientific and Technical Documents // Cataloging & Classification Quarterly. – 1985. – V. 5. – № 3. – P. 17–33. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1300/J104v05n03_02.
13. Gureyev V. N., Lakizo I. G., Mazov N. A. Unfair authorship in science publications and approaches to eliminate it // Proceedings of the Fifth World Professional Forum “The book. Culture. Education. Innovations” (“Crimea-2019”) (8–16 June 2019, Sudak, Crimea). – Moscow : NPLS&T Russia, 2019. – P. 1–6.
14. Guidelines on authorship. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors // British Medical Journal. – 1985. – V. 291. – № 6497. – P. 722. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.291.6497.722.
15. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research: Third edition. – Washington : National Academies Press, 2009. – 82 p.
16. Academy of management code of ethics // Academy of Management Journal. – 2011. – V. 54. – № 6. – P. 1299–1306.
17. On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research: Second edition. – Washington : National Academies Press, 1995. – 49 p.
18. Mikhailov O. V. Discussion on co-authors and co-authorship // Vestn. Ros. acad. nauk. – 2014. – V. 84. – № 1. – P. 93–96. – URL: https://doi.org/10.7868/S0869587314010071.
19. Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. – ICMJE, 2018. – 19 p.
20. Clement T. P. Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contribu¬tions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles // Science and Engineering Ethics. – 2014. – V. 20. – № 2. – P. 345–361. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3.
21. Polnikov V. G. On co-authorship in the science // The way of science. – 2015. – № 10 (20). – C. 149–151.
22. Bugaev K. V. Some problems of co-authorship ethics // Herald of Siberian Institute of Business and Information Technologies. – 2012. – V. 2. – № 2. – P. 72–73.
23. Marušic A., Hren D., Mansi B., Lineberry N., Bhattacharya A., Garrity M., Clark J., Gesell T., Glasser S., Gonzalez J., Hustad C., Lannon M. M., Mooney L. A., Peña T. Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications // BMC Medicine. – 2014. – V. 12. – № 1. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0197-z.
24. COPE. How to spot authorship problems. – 2019. – URL: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Authorship%20problems.pdf (дата обращения: 06.2019).
25. COPE. What to do if you suspect ghost, guest or gift authorship. – 2019. – URL: https://publicationethics.org/files/Ghost.pdf (дата обращения: 06.2019).
26. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update / Scott-Lichter D. – 3rd Revised Edition. – Wheat Ridge, CO : Council of Science Editors, 2012. – 90 p.
27. Association of Science Editors and Publishers. – 2019. – URL: https://rasep.ru/.
28. CSE’s White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications, 2012 Update / Scott-Lichter D. – 3rd Revised Edition. – Wheat Ridge, CO : Council of Science Editors, 2012. – 90 p.
29. Gaeta T. J. Authorship: "law" and order // Academic Emergency Medicine. – 1999. – V. 6. – № 4. – P. 297–301. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00393.x.
30. Case K., Davidson F., Smith R., Squires B. P., Lundberg G., Glass R., Horton R., van der Weyden M., Utiger R., Robinson R. G., Nylenna M., Colaianni L. A., Clever L. H., Woolf P. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals // Journal of the American Medical Association. – 1997. – V. 277. – № 11. – P. 927–934.
31. Bošnjak L., Marušić A. Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines // Scientometrics. – 2012. – V. 93. – № 3. – P. 751–763. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y.
32. Wager E. Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? // Medscape general medicine. – 2007. – V. 3. – 16 p.
33. Uijtdehaage S., Mavis B., Durning S.J. Whose Paper Is It Anyway? Authorship Criteria According to Established Scholars in Health Professions Education // Academic Medicine. – 2018. – V. 93. – № 8. – P. 1171–1175. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000002144.
34. Brand R. A. Editorial: Further thoughts on authorship: Gift authorship // Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. – 2012. – V. 470. – № 10. – P. 2926–2929. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2504-3.
35. Anstey A. Authorship issues: Grizzles, guests and ghosts // British Journal of Dermatology. – 2014. – V. 170. – № 6. – P. 1209–1210. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjd.13095.
36. Baskin P. K., Gross R. A. Honorary and ghost authorship // BMJ (Online). – 2011. – V. 343. – № 7835. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d6223.
37. Kassirer J. P. Authorship criteria // Science. – 1995. – V. 268. – № 5212. – P. 785–786.
38. Liesegang T. J., Bartley G. B. Footnotes, acknowledgments, and authorship: Toward greater responsibility, accountability, and transparency // American Journal of Ophthalmology. – 2014. – V. 158. – № 6. – P. 1103–1104. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2014.09.013.
39. Greenland P., Fontanarosa P. B. Ending honorary authorship // Science. – 2012. – V. 337. – № 6098. – P. 1019. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1224988.
40. Marco C. A., Schmidt T. A. Who Wrote This Paper? Basics of Authorship and Ethical Issues // Academic Emergency Medicine. – 2004. – V. 11. – № 1. – P. 76–77. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1197/j.aem.2003.08.015.
41. Coats A. J. S., Shewan L. G. Statement on authorship and publishing ethics in the international journal of cardiology // International Journal of Cardiology. – 2011. – V. 153. – № 3. – P. 239–240. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcard.2011.10.119.
42. Dance A. Authorship: Who's on first? // Nature. – 2012. – V. 489. – № 7417. – P. 591–593. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/nj7417-591a.
43. Sergeev N. M. Citation ethics and authorship ethics // Proceedings of XIV International conference “Spectroscopy of coordination compounds” (Tuapse, 24–30 September 2017). – Krasnodar : Kuban State University, 2017. – P. 35.
44. Mchedlov-Petrosyan N. O. Ethical aspact of scientific papers in the conditions of information explosion (chemist’s experience) // Visnyk of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. – 2014. – № 8. – P. 77–87.
45. Troshin V. D. About the ethics of scientific publications // Medical Almanac. – 2008. – № 2. ‒ P. 19–23.
46. Riesenberg D., Lundberg G. D. The Order of Authorship: Who’s on First? // JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. – 1990. – V. 264. – № 14. – P. 1857. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1990.03450140079039.
47. Ayiomamitis A. Multiple authorship: a mathematical sanctuary // CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l"Association medicale canadienne. – 1987. – V. 137. – № 12. – P. 1077–1078.
48. Garfield E. More on the ethics of scientific publication – abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science // Current Contents. – 1982. – № 30. – P. 5–10.
49. Marušić A., Bošnjak L., Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines // PLoS ONE. – 2011. – V. 6. – № 9. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023477.
50. GOST 7.1-2003. Bibliographic record. Bibliographic entry. – Moscow, 2004. – 166 p.
51. Bogatov V. V. Ehics in scientific work // Herald of Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. – 2008. – № 1 (137). – P. 144–157.
52. Lange L. L. Citation counts of multi-authored papers – First-named authors and further authors // Scientometrics. – 2001. – V. 52. – № 3. – P. 457–470. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1014299917063.
53. Costas R., Bordons M. Do age and professional rank influence the order of authorship in scientific publications? Some evidence from a micro-level perspective // Scientometrics. – 2011. – V. 88. – № 1. – P. 145–161. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0368-z.
54. Street J. M., Rogers W. A., Israel M., Braunack-Mayer A. J. Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences // Social Science and Medicine. – 2010. – V. 70. – № 9. – P. 1458–1465.
55. Bennett D. M., Taylor D. M. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers // Emergency Medicine. – 2003. – V. 15. – № 3. – P. 263–270. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1442-2026.2003.00432.x.
56. Yank V., Rennie D. Disclosure of researcher contributions: A study of original research articles in the lancet // Annals of Internal Medicine. – 1999. – V. 130. – № 8. – P. 661–670. – URL: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-8-199904200-00013.
57. Larivière V., Desrochers N., Macaluso B., Mongeon P., Paul-Hus A., Sugimoto C. R. Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production // Social Studies of Science. – 2016. – V. 46. – № 3. – P. 417–435. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312716650046.
58. Slone R. M. Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship // American Journal of Roentgenology. – 1996. – V. 167. – № 3. – P. 571–579. – URL: https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.167.3.8751654.
59. Matheson A. How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship-and how they should be revised // PLoS Medicine. – 2011. – V. 8. – № 8. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001072.
60. Smith E., Hunt M., Master Z. Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries // BMC Medical Ethics. – 2014. – V. 15. – № 1. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-42.
61. Price J. H., Dake J. A., Oden L. Authorship of health education articles: Guests, ghosts, and trends // American Journal of Health Behavior. – 2000. – V. 24. – № 4. – P. 290–299. – URL: https://doi.org/10.5993/AJHB.24.4.5.
62. Da Silva J. A. T. The ethics of collaborative authorship. More realistic standards and better accountability are needed to enhance scientific publication and give credit where it is due // EMBO Reports. – 2011. – V. 12. – № 9. – P. 889–893. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2011.161.
63. Smith E., Williams-Jones B. Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies // Science and Engineering Ethics. – 2012. – V. 18. – № 2. – P. 199–212. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5.
64. Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors. – 2018. – URL: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html (дата обращения: 20.06.2019).
65. Amy B., Liz A., Altman M., Marjorie H., Jo S. Beyond authorship: attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit // Learned Publishing. – 2015. – V. 28. – № 2.
66. Allen L., Brand A., Scott J., Altman M., Hlava M. Credit where credit is due // Nature. – 2014. – V. 508. – № 7496. – P. 312–313. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1038/508312a.
67. Rennie D., Yank V., Emanuel L. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable // Jama. – 1997. – V. 278. – № 7. – P. 579–585. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1997.03550070071041.
68. Smith R. Authorship is dying: Long live contributorship. The BMJ will publish lists of contributors and guarantors to original articles // British Medical Journal. – 1997. – V. 315. – № 7110. – P. 696.
69. Jones A. H. Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies? // Science and Engineering Ethics. – 2003. – V. 9. – № 2. – P. 243–256. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-003-0011-3.
70. Moffatt B. Responsible authorship: Why researchers must forgo honorary authorship // Accountability in Research. – 2011. – V. 18. – № 2. – P. 76–90. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2011.557297.
71. Rohlfing T., Poline J. B. Why shared data should not be acknowledged on the author byline // NeuroImage. – 2012. – V. 59. – № 4. – P. 4189–4195. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2011.09.080.
72. Smith R. Let's simply scrap authorship and move to contributorship // BMJ (Online). – 2012. – V. 344. – № 7839. – URL: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e157.
Review
For citations:
Gureev V.N., Mazov N.A., Lakizo I.G. Authorship criteria and the problem of its attribution in scholarly papers. Scientific and Technical Libraries. 2019;(12):5-24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.33186/1027-3689-2019-12-5-24
Views:
1972
Email this article 