The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals

Yang, Siluo; Wolfram, Dietmar; Wang, Feifei

doi:10.1007/s11192-016-2239-0

Cited by 31 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It seems there is no causal relationship between multi-authorship and ethically dubious authorship, however, a higher number of authors provides more room to manipulate the authorship criteria. In addition, multi-authorship requires the determining of the sequence of co-authors in the by-line reflecting their scientific contribution [13][14][15], another complex issue which deserves separate consideration.…”

Section: How Widely Is Authorship Misuse Spread?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.

show abstract

Section: How Widely Is Authorship Misuse Spread?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We believe that there is a need to revive the reflections on the sociological aspects of the attribution of authorship in scientific publications, given the changes and transformations in the identity of the notion of authorship in contemporary science. We continue a discussion on authorship in science (Yang et al 2017), using a Foucauldian framework (Budd and Moulaison 2012;Moulaison et al 2014;Martínez-Á vila et al 2015) and discourse analytic techniques (Budd and Raber 1996;Talja et al 1997;Talja et al 1998;Talja 1999;Budd 2006;Martínez-Á vila 2012;Martínez-Á vila and Fox 2015). Foucault's philosophical views on science are revisited and applied to the current conception of authorship, contributing to the discussion and understanding of this complex phenomenon.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…Thus, minor contributions, such as technical services, editing and review, and borrowing resources from more prestigious researchers could be considered sufficient to warrant co-authorship. This phenomenon can be observed in journals that request the indication of each author's contribution in the paper, sometimes listing these contribution types (Yang, Wolfram and Wang 2017). The acknowledgement of author's contributions to the research has become more important as research teams have grown in size.…”

Section: Scientific Authorshipmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship in science: A critical analysis from a Foucauldian perspective

Hilário

Martínez-Ávila

Grácio

et al. 2017

Research Evaluation

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to contribute to the discussion on authorship in contemporary science from Foucauldian and Kuhnian perspectives, highlighting the social aspects of science and the role of authorship in scientific revolutions. Thus, it describes the functions of the 'author' discussed by Foucault that can assist to reveal the characteristics of the scientific practice and examples of how theories are materialized. As a result, it identifies the ways in which modern science is developed and how knowledge is construed by multiple authors, group authors, the merit that is attributed by citations, etc. This article highlights the complexity of authorship attribution and the need to rethink generalized bibliometric techniques to evaluate science considering other aspects that go beyond the mere listing of the authors.

show abstract

“…Currently, only a few have examined the scientific collaboration at the level of task assignments (Corrêa, Silva, Costa, & Amancio, 2017;Jabbehdari & Walsh, 2017;Larivière et al, 2016;Yang, Wolfram, & Wang, 2017). However, their focus was on tasks globally, rather than from the perspective of interactions within each team.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Jabbehdari and Walsh (2017) estimated the likelihood of specialist authors by checking the authors' tasks via a survey of 8,864 articles. Yang et al (2017) analyzed the relationship between authors' tasks in the contribution lists and their positions in the bylines. There is a lack of research investigating the detailed division of labor within every collaboration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Co‐contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations

Ahn

Ding

et al. 2019

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborations are pervasive in current science. Collaborations have been studied and encouraged in many disciplines. However, little is known about how a team really functions from the detailed division of labor within. In this research, we investigate the patterns of scientific collaboration and division of labor within individual scholarly articles by analyzing their co‐contributorship networks. Co‐contributorship networks are constructed by performing the one‐mode projection of the author–task bipartite networks obtained from 138,787 articles published in PLoS journals. Given an article, we define 3 types of contributors: Specialists, Team‐players, and Versatiles. Specialists are those who contribute to all their tasks alone; team‐players are those who contribute to every task with other collaborators; and versatiles are those who do both. We find that team‐players are the majority and they tend to contribute to the 5 most common tasks as expected, such as “data analysis” and “performing experiments.” The specialists and versatiles are more prevalent than expected by our designed 2 null models. Versatiles tend to be senior authors associated with funding and supervision. Specialists are associated with 2 contrasting roles: the supervising role as team leaders or marginal and specialized contributors.

show abstract

The relationship between the author byline and contribution lists: a comparison of three general medical journals

Cited by 31 publications

References 34 publications

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Authorship in science: A critical analysis from a Foucauldian perspective

Co‐contributorship network and division of labor in individual scientific collaborations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About