Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring

Science and Engineering Ethics

Volumn 22, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 1717-1743

  Bozeman, Barry ^a   Youtie, Jan ^b  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Co authorship; Contributorship; Ghost authors; Guest author; Research collaboration

Indexed keywords

ETHICS; PERSONNEL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; THEORETICAL MODEL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PUBLICATIONS; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITIES;

EID: 84947087361     PISSN: 13533452     EISSN: 14715546     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Rosati, F. (2014). Career advancement and scientific performance in universities. Scientometrics, 98(2), 891–907.
2. Anderson, D. M., & Slade, C. P. (2015). Managing institutional research advancement: Implications from a university faculty time allocation study. Research in Higher Education, 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11162-015-9376-9.
3. Austin, M. A., Hair, M. S., & Fullerton, S. M. (2012). Research guidelines in the era of large-scale collaborations: An analysis of Genome-wide Association Study Consortia. American Journal of Epidemiology, 175(9), 962–969.
4. Barker, K. (2007). The UK Research Assessment Exercise: The evolution of a national research evaluation system. Research Evaluation, 16(1), 3–12.
5. Baron, R. S. (2005). So right it’s wrong: Groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group decision making. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 219–253.
6. Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. New York: McGraw-Hill Education.
7. Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770.
8. Birukou, A., Wakeling, J. R., Bartolini, C., Casati, F., Marchese, M., Mirylenka, K. et al. (2011). Alternatives to peer review: Novel approaches for research evaluation. Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 5. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fncom.2011.00056.
9. Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda. New York: Springer.
10. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.
11. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67.
12. Bozeman, B., & Gaughan, M. (2011). How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy, 40(10), 1393–1402.
13. Bozeman, B., Gaughan, M., Youtie, J., Slade, C. P., & Rimes, H. (2015). Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines. Science and Public Policy. doi:10.1093/scipol/scv035.
14. Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23(1), 14–31.
15. Brockner, J., & Wiesenfeld, B. M. (1996). An integrative framework for explaining reactions to decisions: Interactive effects of outcomes and procedures. Psychological Bulletin, 120(2), 189–208.
16. Council of Science Editors. (1999). White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications. http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/editorial_policies/white_paper.cfm
17. Crane, D. (1965). Scientists at major and minor universities: A study of productivity and recognition. American Sociological Review, 30, 699–714.
18. Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2001). Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(9), 770–773.
19. De Stefano, D., Fuccella, V., Vitale, M. P., & Zaccarin, S. (2013). The use of different data sources in the analysis of co-authorship networks and scientific performance. Social Networks, 35(3), 370–381.
20. Devine, E. B., Beney, J., & Bero, L. A. (2005). Equity, accountability, transparency: Implementation of the contributorship concept in a multi-site study. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, 69, 455–459.
21. Dörner, D., & Schaub, H. (1994). Errors in planning and decision-making and the nature of human information processing. Applied Psychology, 43(4), 433–453.
22. Drenth, J. P. H. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280(3), 219–221.
23. Esser, J. K. (1998). Alive and well after 25 years: A review of groupthink research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73(2), 116–141.
24. Fox, M. F. (1983). Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review. Social Studies of Science, 13(2), 285–305.
25. Gaughan, M., & Ponomariov, B. (2008). Faculty publication productivity, collaboration, and grants velocity: Using curricula vitae to compare center-affiliated and unaffiliated scientists. Research Evaluation, 17(2), 103–110.
26. Gino, F., Ayal, S., & Ariely, D. (2009). Contagion and differentiation in unethical behavior the effect of one bad apple on the barrel. Psychological Science, 20(3), 393–398.
27. Green, S., & Bauer, T. (1995). Supervisory mentoring by advisers: Relationships with doctoral student potential, productivity, and commitment. Personnel Psychology, 48(3), 537–542.
28. Haustein, S., & Siebenlist, T. (2011). Applying social bookmarking data to evaluate journal usage. Journal of Informetrics, 5(3), 446–457.
29. Hayter, M., Noyes, J., Perry, L., Pickler, R., Roe, B., & Watson, R. (2013). Who writes, whose rights, and who’s right? Issues in authorship. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 69(12), 2599–2601.
30. Heffner, A. G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3, 5–12.
31. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (1997). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(11), 927–934.
32. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiasces. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
33. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.
34. Kornfeld, D. S. (2012). Perspective: Research misconduct: The search for a remedy. Academic Medicine, 87(7), 877–882.
35. Labianca, G., Brass, D. J., & Gray, B. (1998). Social networks and perceptions of intergroup conflict: The role of negative relationships and third parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41(1), 55–67.
36. Lagnado, M. (2003). Increasing the trust in scientific authorship. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183(1), 3–4.
37. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.
38. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
39. Levsky, M. E., Rosin, A., Coon, T. P., Enslow, W. L., & Miller, M. A. (2007). A descriptive analysis of authorship within medical journals, 1995–2005. Southern Medical Journal, 100, 371–375.
40. Link, A. N., Swann, C. A., & Bozeman, B. (2008). A time allocation study of university faculty. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 363–374.
41. Marusić, M., Bozikov, J., Katavić, V., Hren, D., Kljaković-Gaspić, M., & Marusić, A. (2004). Authorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors. Science And Engineering Ethics, 10(3), 493–502.
42. McCauley, C. (1989). The nature of social influence in groupthink: Compliance and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(2), 250.
43. McCrary, S. V., Anderson, C. B., Jakovljevic, J., Khan, T., McCullough, L. B., Wray, N. P., & Brody, B. A. (2000). A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 343(22), 1621–1626.
44. McShane, M., Nirenburg, S., & Jarrell, B. (2013). Modeling decision-making biases. Biologically Inspired Cognitive Architectures, 3, 39–50.
45. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level”. Research Policy, 29(3), 1140–1670.
46. Mowery, D. C., & Sampat, B. N. (2001). Patenting and licensing university inventions: Lessons from the history of the research corporation. Industrial and Corporate Change, 10(2), 317–355.
47. Muscio, A., & Pozzali, A. (2013). The effects of cognitive distance in university-industry collaborations: Some evidence from Italian universities. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(4), 486–508.
48. Nabi, R. L. (1999). A cognitive-functional model for the effects of discrete negative emotions on information processing, attitude change, and recall. Communication Theory, 9(3), 292–320.
49. Nedeva, M., Georghiou, L., Halfpenny, P. (1999) Benefactors or beneficiary—The role of industry in the support of university research equipment. Journal of Technology Transfer, 24(2-3), 139–147.
50. Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence. Psychological Review, 93(1), 23.
51. Olson, G. M., Malone, T. W., & Smith, J. B. (Eds.). (2013). Coordination theory and collaboration technology. New York: Psychology Press.
52. Pichini, S., Pulido, M., & García-Algar, O. (2005). Authorship in manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: An author's position and its value. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(2), 173-175.
53. Plemmons, D. (2012). Challenges for research ethics education in the social sciences. Teaching Ethics, 12(2), 145–147.
54. Plous, S. (1993). The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York: Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
55. Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39(5), 613–624.
56. Porter, A. L., & Rafols, I. (2009). Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics, 81(3), 719–745.
57. Resnik, D. B., Peddada, S., & Brunson Jr, W. (2009). Research misconduct policies of scientific journals. Accountability in research, 16(5), 254–267.
58. Rennie, D. (2001). Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle and Nerve, 24(10), 1274–1277.
59. Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! authorship!: Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA, 271(6), 469–471.
60. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A., & Yank, V. (2000). The contributions of authors. JAMA, 284(1), 89–91.
61. Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(7), 579–585.
62. ResearchGate Press Office. (2014). Peer review isn’t working—Introducing open review. Posted March 13, 2014 at https://news.researchgate.net/index.php?/authors/8-ResearchGate-Press-Office
63. Saha, K., & Hurlbut, J. B. (2011). Research ethics: Treat donors as partners in biobank research. Nature, 478(7369), 312–313.
64. Smith, R. (2012). Let’s simply scrap authorship and move to contributorship. BMJ, 344.
65. Sonnewald, DH. (2014). Some points about ASIS&T global initiatives. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science, 40(5), 32–34.
66. Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the scientific literature: Do authors deliberately commit research fraud? Journal of Medical Ethics, 37(2), 113–117.
67. Tacke, O. (2011). Open science 2.0: How research and education can benefit from open innovation and Web 2.0. In On Collective Intelligence (pp. 37-48). Springer: Heidelberg.
68. Tenenbaum, H., Crosby, J., & Gliner, M. (2001). Mentoring relationships in graduate school. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59(3), 326–341.
69. Thune, T. (2009). Doctoral students on the university–industry interface: a review of the literature. Higher Education, 58(5), 637–651.
70. Tollefsen, D. P. (2006). Group deliberation, social cohesion, and scientific teamwork: Is there room for dissent? Episteme, 3(1–2), 37–51.
71. Vähäkangas, K. (2013). Research ethics in the post-genomic era. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis, 54(7), 599–610.
72. van Rijnsoever, F. J., & Hessels, L. K. (2011). Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy, 40(3), 463–472.
73. Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100(S1), S40–S46.
74. Washburn, J. (2008). Encouraging research collaboration through ethical and fair authorship: A model policy. Ethics and Behavior, 18(1), 44–58.
75. Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
76. Ynalvez, M. A., & Shrum, W. M. (2011). Professional networks, scientific collaboration, and publication productivity in resource-constrained research institutions in a developing country. Research Policy, 40(2), 204–216.
77. Youtie, J., & Bozeman, B. (2014). Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics, 101(2), 953–962.
78. Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configuration and opportunity as predictors of unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 35(7), 587–604.
79. Zhou, W., Zou, Y., Zhu, Y., Fei, S., & Lu, X. (2012, September). Wiki lab: A collaboration-oriented scitentific research platform. In Electronic System-Integration Technology Conference (ESTC), 2012 4th (pp. 411-414). IEEE.