Losing young researchers in the authorship battle, under-reported casualties

Khalifa, Ahmed A.

doi:10.1016/j.jemep.2021.100735

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…27,28 In fact, it has been suggested that the "publish or perish" reality may in part drive these negative power imbalances throughout different roles within biomedical research, from trainees to senior faculty. [53][54][55] Though conflict with supervisor was identified as a major correlate of distress within this dataset, more investigation is required to fully understand the precise nature of this major stressor within biomedical researchers in the academic medical center setting.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Organizational Correlates of Distress in Non-Clinician Biomedical Researchers in the United States

Boitet¹,

Meese²,

Colón-López³

et al. 2023

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Challenges ushered by the COVID-19 pandemic led to an increased focus on the mental well-being of the healthcare workforce. Despite the important contribution non-clinician biomedical researchers make to the mission of academic medical centers, the well-being of this unique population remains understudied in the United States. The purpose of this study was to examine the individual and organizational correlates of distress among non-clinician biomedical researchers. Methods A survey was delivered to employees of a large academic medical center in the southeastern United States, including non-clinician biomedical researchers. Participants were asked to assess their own well-being using the validated Well-Being Index (WBI) tool, resilience, work and nonwork-related stressors and demographic descriptors. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were conducted, and binary logistic regression was used to examine predictors of increased odds of overall distress. Results Nearly 44% of surveyed non-clinician biomedical researchers met the threshold for high distress which indicates an increased risk of suicidal ideation, turnover intention, and burnout. The major correlates of distress were at the organizational level, including perceived organizational support (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.70–0.90), heavy workload and long hours (OR 3.25, 95% CI 1.53–6.88), inability or lack of support to take time off (OR 2.80, 95% CI 1.03–7.66) and conflict with supervisor (OR 5.03, 95% CI 1.13–22.1). While lower individual resilience (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.54–0.88) was statistically significantly associated with greater distress, it accounted for less than 10% of the overall variance when controlling for other work-related factors. Conclusion These findings suggest that developing organizational interventions that address institutional support for non-clinician biomedical researchers within academic medical centers represents an important opportunity to reduce distress within this population. While emphasizing individual resiliency as an important in the pursuit of well-being, it is also the responsibility of the organization to create and foster an environment in which employees can access their own resilience.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

An Investigation of Organizational Correlates of Distress in Non-Clinician Biomedical Researchers in the United States

Boitet¹,

Meese²,

Colón-López³

et al. 2023

JMDH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In such a scheme, current authors implicitly or explicitly offer guest authors authorship slots in exchange for future guest authorship in guest authors' papers (Barta, 2022). Ghost authors are also prevalent in research, especially young researchers who contribute significantly but are neither listed as co‐authors nor acknowledged (DeTora, 2022; Khalifa, 2022; Pruschak & Hopp, 2022). Meanwhile, AI cannot be guest or gift authors as it does not engage in reciprocity, although human authors could easily treat AI as ghost authors.…”

Section: Authorship As We Currently Know It: the Human‐based Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Silva

Tsigaris

2023

Learned Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.• Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human-based authorship model.• Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.• We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.• We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself.

show abstract

“…Kovacs (2017, p. 53) discusses the idea of the economy of authorship whereby the “logics of intense competition” rampant in academia result in undemocratic abuses of power as a form of symbolic violence (Bourdieu, 1990). Such abuse is most often enacted by dominant, senior academics and exemplified through practices of honorary authorship and publication cartels (Khalifa, 2022). Kovacs (2017) suggests that change can only come through “institutional mechanisms” (2017, p. 51) and calls for academia to instantiate “democratic way[s]” (2017, p. 59) of collaboration.…”

Section: Literature Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let there be a “We”: introducing an ethics of collective academic care

2023

EJM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to think critically about collaborative working through the practical application of an ethics of care approach. The authors address the following research questions: How can the authors embed an ethics of care into academic collaboration? What are the benefits and challenges of this kind of collaborative approach? The contextual focus also incorporates a collective sense making of academic identities over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design/methodology/approach The authors focus on the activities of the “Consumer Research with Impact for Society” collective at and around the 2021 Academy of Marketing conference. The authors draw on the insights and labour of the group in terms of individual and collaborative reflexivity, workshops and the development of a collaborative poem. Findings First, the authors present the “web of words” as the adopted approach to collaborative writing. Second, the authors consider the broader takeaways that have emerged from the collaboration in relation to blurring of boundaries, care in collaboration and transformations. Originality/value The overarching contribution of the paper is to introduce an Ethics of Collective Academic Care. The authors discuss three further contributions that emerged as central in its operationalisation: arts-based research, tensions and conflicts and structural issues. The application of the “web of words” approach also offers a template for an alternative means of engaging with, and representing, those involved in the research.

show abstract

Losing young researchers in the authorship battle, under-reported casualties

Cited by 10 publications

References 63 publications

An Investigation of Organizational Correlates of Distress in Non-Clinician Biomedical Researchers in the United States

An Investigation of Organizational Correlates of Distress in Non-Clinician Biomedical Researchers in the United States

Human‐ and AI‐based authorship: Principles and ethics

Let there be a “We”: introducing an ethics of collective academic care

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About