Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of giving credit

Accountability in Research

Volumn 17, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 146-169

  Seeman, Jeffrey I ^a   House, Mark C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND   (United States)

^b Giant Steps Research   (United States)

Author keywords

Acknowledgment; Authorship; Ghost author; Guest author; Publication; RCR; Responsible conduct of research

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT; ARTICLE; ETHICS; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; PERCEPTION; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH ETHICS; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; DATA COLLECTION; EDUCATION, GRADUATE; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY;

EID: 77952481580     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989621003791986     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. American Astronomical Society. (2010). AAS Ethics Statement. Available at http:// aas.org/about/ethics_statement. Last accessed March 17, 2010.
2. American Chemical Society. (2006). Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemical Research. Available at http://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1218054468605/ ethics.pdf. Last accessed March 17, 2010.
3. Barrett, K. A., Funk, C. L., and Macrina, F. L. (2005). Awareness of publication guidelines and the responsible conduct of research. Accountability in Research, 12:193-206.
4. Bates, T., Anie, A., Marusic, M., and Marusic, A. (2004). Authorship criteria and disclosure. Comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292:86-88.
5. Bouville, M. (2008). Plagiarism: Words and ideas. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14:311-322.
6. Brown-Wright, D. A., Dubick, D. A., and Newman, I. (1997). Graduate assistant expectation and faculty perceptions: Implications for mentoring and training. Journal of College Student Development, 38:410-415.
7. Claxton, L. D. (2005a). Scientific authorship. Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research, 589:17-30.
8. Claxton, L. D. (2005b). Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589:31-45.
9. Davis, M. S. (2003). The role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability in Research, 10:189-201.
10. Fine, M. A. and Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48:1141-1147.
11. Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Philips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., and Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:222-224.
12. Funk, C. L., Barrett, K. A., and Macrina, F. L. (2007). Authors and publication practices: Evaluation of the effect of responsible conduct of research instruction to post-doctoral trainees. Accountability in Research, 14:1-37.
13. Garfield, E. (1982). More on the ethics of scientific publication: Abuses of authorship attribution and citation amnesia undermine the reward system of science. Current Contents, Number 30 (July 26): 5-10; also published in Garfield, E. (1981-82). Essays of an Information Scientist, 5: 621-626.
14. Garrett, J. M. and Bird, S. J. (2000). Ethical issues in communicating science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6:435-442.
15. Goodman, N. W. (1994). Survey of fulfillment of criteria for authorship in published medical research. British Medical Journal, 309:1482.
16. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2010). Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Ethical Considerations in the Conduct and Reporting of Research: Authorship and Contributorship. Available at http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html. Last accessed March 17, 2010.
17. Johnson, C. (2005). Questioning the importance of authorship. Journal of Manipulative Physiological Therapeutics, 28:149-150.
18. Lawrence, P. A. (2002). Rank injustice. Nature, 415:835-836.
19. MacDonald, C. and Williams-Jones, B. (2009). Supervisor-student relations: Examining the spectrum of conflicts of interest in bioscience laboratories. Accountability in Research, 16:106-126.
20. Macrina, F. L. (2000). Scientific Integrity. Washington, D.C.: ASM Press.
21. Martinson, B. C., Anderson, M. S., and de Vries, R. (2005). Scientists behaving badly. Nature, 435:737-738.
22. Merton, R. K. (1973). The Sociology of Science. Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23. Rennie, D., Yank, V., and Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278:579-585.
24. Resnik, D. B. (1997). A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. Science and Engineering Ethics, 3:237-244.
25. Robinson, D. L., Burton-Danner, K., and Kiser, K. (1999). Dealing with scientific disputes involving authorship. Professional Ethics, 7:45-58.
26. Seeman, J. I. and House, M. C. (2010). (Credit and Authorship Practice. Educational and Environmental Influences).
27. Seeman, J. I. and House, M. C. (In press). Influences on authorship issues. An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability in Research.
28. Shamoo, A. E. and Resnik, D. B. (2003). Responsible Conduct of Research. New York: Oxford University Press. (See also the 2009 edition of this book.)
29. Steneck, N. H. (2007). Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
30. Sullivan, L. E. and Ogloff, J. R. (1998). Appropriate supervisor-graduate student relationships. Ethics and Behavior, 8:229-248.
31. Tarnow, E., DeYoung, B. R., and Cohen, M. B. (2004). Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survey-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline. Medscape General Medicine, 6:1-2.
32. Vernon, B., Rankin, J., Stacy, R., Perrson, P., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., McColl, E., and Bhopal, R. (1997). The process of researching authorship issues: A case study from the United Kingdom. The Council of Biological Editors (CBE) Views, 20:119-124.
33. Welsh, R. K., Lareau, D. R., Clevenger, J. K., and Reger, M. A. (2008). Ethical and legal considerations regarding disputed authorship with the use of shared data. Accountability in Research, 15:105-131.
34. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. (2000). Federal policy on research misconduct. 76260-76264. Available at http://ori.dhhs.gov/policies/fed_research_misconduct.shtml. Last accessed March 17, 2010.
35. Wilcox, L. J. (1998). Authorship. The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280:216-217.
36. Woodward, J. and Goodstein, D. (1996). Conduct, misconduct and the structure of science. American Scientist, 84:479-490.