Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?

Abstract

Authorship is a central element of scientific research carrying a variety of rewards and responsibilities, and while various guidelines exist, actual author contributions are often ambiguous. Inconsistent or limited contributions threaten to devalue authorship as intellectual currency and diminish authors’ responsibility for published content. Researchers have assessed author contributions in the medical literature and other research fields, but similar data for the field of ecological research are lacking. Authorship practices in ecological research are broadly representative of a variety of fields due to the cross-disciplinary nature of collaborations in ecological studies. To better understand author contributions to current research, we distributed a survey regarding co-author contributions to a random selection of 996 lead authors of manuscripts published in ecological journals in 2010. We obtained useable responses from 45% of surveyed authors. Reported lead author contributions in ecological research studies consistently included conception of the project idea, data collection, analysis, and writing. Middle and last author contributions instead showed a high level of individual variability. Lead authorship in ecology is well defined while secondary authorship is more ambiguous. Nearly half (48%) of all studies included in our survey had some level of non-compliance with Ecological Society of America (ESA) authorship guidelines and the majority of studies (78%) contained at least one co-author that did not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements. Incidence of non-compliance varied with lead author occupation and author position. The probability of a study including an author that was non-compliant with ESA guidelines was lowest for professor-led studies and highest for graduate student and post doctoral researcher-led studies. Among studies with > two co-authors, all lead authors met ESA guidelines and only 2% failed to meet ICMJE requirements. Middle (24% ESA, 63% ICMJE) and last (37% ESA, 60% ICMJE) authors had higher rates of non-compliance. The probability of a study containing a co-author that did not meet ESA or ICMJE requirements increased significantly with the number of co-authors per study although even studies with only two co-authors had a high probability of non-compliance of approximately 60% (ICMJE) and 15 to 40% (ESA). Given the variable and often limited contributions of authors in our survey and past studies of other research disciplines, institutions, journals, and scientific societies need to implement new approaches to instill meaning in authorship status. A byline approach may not alter author contributions but would better define individual contributions and reduce existing ambiguity regarding the meaning of authorship in modern ecological research.

Patterns of authorship in ecology and evolution: First, last, and corresponding authorship vary with gender and geography

“…When manuscripts have more than one author, the contributions of authors to the research can vary substantially among individuals, both in type (e.g., conceptualization, data collection, data analysis) and in magnitude. The extent of each author's contribution can be inferred from the order in which their names appear in the byline (Logan, Bean, & Myers, ), though the conventional meanings of authorship positions vary among research disciplines and countries (Liu & Fang, ; Waltman, ). The most common convention is for the first author to be the person who contributed the most to a project and the last author to be the person who supervised the project (Baerlocher, Newton, Gautam, Tomlinson, & Detsky, ; Corrêa, Silva, Costa, & Amancio, ; Costas & Bordons, ; Larivière et al, ; Marušić, Bošnjak, & Jerončić, ; Perneger et al, ; Sundling, ; Yang, Wolfram, & Wang, ), though there are necessarily many exceptions to this convention, especially when coauthors are of equivalent professional rank rather than in a mentee–mentor relationship.…”

Hear every voice – working groups that work

“…Then all members of the group ranked the options, and we selected the top three paper ideas to pursue, with the rest saved in an "other great ideas" document. In the early stages of manuscript composition, we followed many of the guidelines outlined in Frassl et al (2018) and Oliver et al (2018) to ensure that each participant's contributions were valued and also to make certain that everyone listed as an author met the standard criteria for co-authorship (Logan et al 2017).…”

Strategies for effective collaborative manuscript development in interdisciplinary science teams

“…For example, most researchers agree that coauthors need to be held accountable for, contribute intellectually, and approve the final manuscript, which is reflected in many existing recommendations in ecology (Weltzin et al 2006, Duke andPorter 2013). For example, a recent study of current authorship practices in ecology suggests that many authors may not be meeting minimum guidelines established by some professional societies (Logan et al 2017). For example, a recent study of current authorship practices in ecology suggests that many authors may not be meeting minimum guidelines established by some professional societies (Logan et al 2017).…”

“…However, there is recent evidence that coauthorship practices are not as effective as they could be. For example, a recent study of current authorship practices in ecology suggests that many authors may not be meeting minimum guidelines established by some professional societies (Logan et al 2017). Additionally, some teams are overly inclusive in their authorship practices in order to prevent conflict within the team ).…”