Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies

Abstract

Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

Personal Accessories as a Carrier for Zoonotic Disease

“…Tight straps and pressure on facial nerves can contribute to headaches (BIEKMAN 1950). Factors such as sleep deprivation, irregular meal times, and high-stress levels can also contribute to headaches in healthcare workers who wear face masks for extended periods (Rasmussen et al 2020). Face masks with tight straps can impede proper breathing and result in increased carbon dioxide levels (CO2) known as hypercapnia (McDonell 2015).…”

Authorship and Publication Matters: Credit and Credibility

“…27 Authorship practices and misbehavior influence not just manuscript and research group integrity but more broadly the culture of institutional research integrity, and there is an association between authorship conflicts and other research misbehaviors. 28 How authorship is determined and how credit is apportioned today are "highly subjective, open to abuse, and often determined more by laboratory politics or seniority than by actual effort or contribution." 10 Unethical authorship practice, or misuse, while acknowledged as misbehavior, may be dismissed as "normal misbehavior," "a marginal issue", or "peripheral incidents of self-aggrandizement" that are common, mundane, and of little consequence for the advance of science.…”

“…Nonetheless, only 24% of U.S. doctoral institutions assessed had a publicly available authorship policy. 28 Authors at institutions that do have research policies may not be aware of or actively use them.…”

“…If scientists or clinicians are prepared to lie about the people involved with a research project or a publication, why should we expect them to be any more honest about their findings?” 27 Authorship practices and misbehavior influence not just manuscript and research group integrity but more broadly the culture of institutional research integrity, and there is an association between authorship conflicts and other research misbehaviors. 28…”

“…14,30 Authorship misbehavior is learned behavior. Trainees learn it from their supervisors 14 and from the "hidden curriculum" of unethical practices about assigning authorship 28 and may later transmit it to their trainees.…”