What Constitutes Authorship in the Social Sciences?

Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics

Volumn 6, Issue , 2021, Pages

  Pruschak, Gernot ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b BERN UNIVERSITY OF APPLIED SCIENCES   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

academic incentive system; authorship; ethics in research; research tasks; specialization; survey research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85140990520     PISSN: None     EISSN: 25040537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3389/frma.2021.655350     Document Type: Article

References (98)

1. Alauddin M. Nghiemb H. S. (2010). Do instructional attributes pose multicollinearity problems? An empirical exploration. Econ. Anal. Policy 40, 351–361. 10.1016/S0313-5926(10)50034-1
2. Albert T. Wager E. (2004). How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers, in The COPE Report 2003, ed White C. (London: BMJ Books), 32–34.
3. Allen L. O'Connell A. Kiermer V. (2019). How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the contributor role taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learn. Publish. 32, 71–74. 10.1002/leap.1210
4. Antonakis J. Bendahan S. Jacquart P. Lalive R. (2010). On making causal claims: a review and recommendations. Leadersh. Q. 21, 1086–1120. 10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.10.010
5. ASA. (2018). Code of Ethics. Available onlin at: http://www.asanet.org/sites/default/files/asa_code_of_ethics-june2018.pdf (accessed November 03, 2019).
6. Bachrach S. Bery R. S. Blume M. von Foerster T. Fowler A. Ginsparg P. et al. (1998). Who should own scientific papers? Science 281:1459. 10.1126/science.281.5382.1459
7. Balkin D. B. Trevino L. Fitza M. A. Gomez-Mejia L. R. Tadikonda D. D. H. (2018). Who's on first? Uncovering the factors that lead to first authorship in management scholarship. in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (Chicago). 10.5465/AMBPP.2018.11381abstract
8. Bartle S. A. Fink A. A. Hayes B. C. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding authorship issues in psychological publications. Psychol. Rep. 86, 771–788. 10.2466/pr0.2000.86.3.77110876325
9. Bedeian A. G. (2004). Peer review and the social construction of knowledge in the management discipline. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 3, 198–216. 10.5465/amle.2004.13500489
10. Bhattacharjee Y. (2013). The Mind of a Con Man. New York Times. Retrieved from: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/magazine/diederik-stapels-audacious-academic-fraud.html (accessed September 03, 2020).
11. Bhattacherjee A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices, 2nd Edn. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida Textbooks Collection.
12. Bloch C. Schneider J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and research behavior: an analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the institutional level. Res. Evaul. 25, 371–382. 10.1093/reseval/rvv047
13. Bosnjak L. Marusic A. (2011). Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines, in Paper Presented at the COPE Seminar (London). 10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y
14. Braun R. L. Stallworth H. L. (2009). The academic honesty expectations gap: an analysis of accounting student and faculty perspectives. Account. Educ. J. 19, 127–141. 10.2139/ssrn.649765
15. Carpenter C. R. Cone D. C. Sarli C. C. (2014). Using publication metrics to highlight academic productivity and research impact. Acad. Emerg. Med. 21, 1160–1172. 10.1111/acem.1248225308141
16. Chan K. C. Chen C. R. Cheng L. T. W. (2009). Co-authorship patterns in accounting research. Int. Rev. Account. Bank. Finan. 1, 1–10. 10.1002/mde.3163
17. Claxton L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat. Res. 589, 31–45. 10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.00215652225
18. Cole J. Cole S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
19. COPE. (1999). Guidelines on Good Publication Practice. Available online at: https://publicationethics.org/files/u7141/1999pdf13.pdf (accessed November 03, 2019)
20. Cox A. M. Pinfield S. (2014). Research data management an libraries: current activities and future priorities. J. Librariansh. Inform. Sci. 46, 299–316. 10.1177/0961000613492542
21. Davenport T. H. Patill D. J. (2012). Data scientist: the sexiest job of the 21st century. Harv. Bus. Rev. 90, 70–76. Available online at: https://hbr.org/2012/10/data-scientist-the-sexiest-job-of-the-21st-century23074866
22. Di Bitteti M. S. Ferreras J. A. (2017). Publish (in English) or perish: the effect on citation rate of using languages other than English in scientific publications. Ambio 46, 121–127. 10.1007/s13280-016-0820-727686730
23. Elliott R. Fischer C. T. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research studies in psychology and related fields. Br. J. Clin. Psychol. 38, 215–229. 10.1348/01446659916278210532145
24. Endersby J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit. Soc. Sci. Q. 77, 375–392.
25. Engels T. Ossenblok T. Spruyt E. (2012). Changing publication pattersn in the social sciences and humanities. Scientometrics 93, 373–390. 10.1007/s11192-012-0680-2
26. Engers M. Gans J. S. Grant S. King S. P. (1999). First-author conditions. J. Politic. Econ. 107, 859–883. 10.1086/250082
27. Fanelli D. Lariviere V. (2016). Researchers‘ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PLoS ONE 11:e0149504. 10.1371/journal.pone.014950426960191
28. Fine M. A. Kurdek L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. Am. Psychol. 48, 1141–1147. 10.1037/0003-066X.48.11.1141
29. Flanagin A. Carey L. A. Fontanarosa P. B. Philips S. G. Pace B. P. Lundberg G. D. et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 222–224. 10.1001/jama.280.3.2229676661
30. Floyd S. W. Schroeder D. M. Finn D. M. (1994). “Only if I'm first author”: conflict over credit in management scholarship. Acad. Manag. J. 37, 734–747. 10.2307/256709
31. Garrat D. Li Y. (2005). The foundations of experimental/empirical research methods, in Research Methods in the Social Sciences, eds Somekh B. Lewin C. (London: SAGE Publications), 198–206.
32. Gelman A. Hill J. (2006). Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO978051179094217608921
33. Gustavii B. (2017). How to Write and Illustrate a Scientific Paper, 3rd Edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316650431
34. Hall G. M. (Ed). (2008). How to write a paper, 5th Edn. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
35. Hamermesh D. S. (2015). Age, cohort and co-authorship: The statistics of collaboration, in Collaborative Research in Economics: The Wisdom of Working Together, eds Szenberg M. Ramrattan L. B. (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan), 65–93. 10.3386/w20938
36. Hamilton J. B. Greco A. J. Tanner J. R. (1997). Ethical questions regarding joint authorship: business and nonbusiness faculty perceptions on noncontributing authorship. J. Educ. Bus. 72, 325–330. 10.1080/08832323.1997.10116865
37. Harriss C. (1998). Why research without theory is not research: a reply to seymour, crook and rooke. Constr. Manag. Econom. 16, 113–116. 10.1080/014461998372664
38. Hart R. L. (2000). Collaborative publication by university librarians: an exploratory study. J. Acad. Librariansh. 26, 94–99. 10.1016/S0099-1333(99)00145-7
39. Hoen W. P. Walvoort H. C. Overbeke J. P. M. (1998). What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' name?: a study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). J. Am. Med. Assoc. 280, 217–218. 10.1001/jama.280.3.217
40. Hopp C. Hoover G. A. (2017). How prevalent is academic misconduct in management research? J. Bus. Res. 80, 73–81. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.07.003
41. Howe K. R. Moses M. S. (1999). Chapter 2: Ethics in education research. Rev. Res. Educ. 24, 21–59. 10.3102/0091732X024001021
42. Hudson J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. J. Econom. Perspect. 10, 153–158. 10.1257/jep.10.3.153
43. ICMJE. (1985). Guidelines on authorship. Br. Med. J. 291:722. 10.1136/bmj.291.6497.722
44. ICMJE. (1988). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Br. Med. J. 296, 401–405. 10.1136/bmj.296.6619.401
45. Ioannidis J. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2:e124. 10.1371/journal.pmed.002012417593900
46. Jaeger R. G. Halliday T. R. (1998). On confirmatory versus exploratory research. Herpetologica 54, 64–66.
47. Kallestinova E. D. (2011). How to write your first research paper. Yale J. Biol. Med. 84, 181–190. 21966034
48. Kendall D. L. Campanario S. C. (2016). Honoring god through scientific research: Navigating the ethics of publishing with our students. Int. J. Christ. Educ. 20, 133–148. 10.1177/2056997116637878
49. Kidwell M. C. Lazarevic L. B. Baranski E. Hardwicke T. E. Piechowski S. Falkenberg L. S. et al. (2016). Badges to acknowledge open practices: a simple, low-cost effective method for increasing transparency. PLoS Biol. 14:e1002456. 10.1371/journal.pbio.100245627171007
50. Kraut R. E. Galegher J. Edigo C. (1987). Relationships and tasks in scientific research collaboration, Hum. Comput. Interact. 3, 31–58. 10.1207/s15327051hci0301_3
51. Lancaster. (2005). Research Methods in Management. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
52. Landrum R. E. Nelsen L. R. (2002). The undergraduate research assistantship: an analysis of the benefits. Teach. Psychol. 29, 15–19. 10.1207/S15328023TOP2901_04
53. Leash E. (1997). Is it time for a new approach to authorship? J. Dent. Res. 76, 724–727. 10.1177/00220345970760030101
54. Lee N. Lings I. (2008). Doing Business Research. London: SAGE Publications.
55. Lee S. Bozeman B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35, 673–702. 10.1177/030631270505235918796149
56. Liao Q. Zhang Y. Fan Y. Zheng M. Bai Y. Eslick G. D. et al. (2018). Perceptions of Chinese biomedical researchers towards academic misconduct: a comparison between 2015 and 2010. Sci. Eng. Ethics. 24, 629–645. 10.1007/s11948-017-9913-328397174
57. Lindsey D. (1980). Production and citation measures in the sociology of science: the problem of multiple authorship. Soc. Stud. Sci. 10, 145–162. 10.1177/030631278001000202
58. Lundberg C. C. (1976). Hypothesis creation in organizational behavior research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1, 5–12. 10.5465/amr.1976.4408646
59. Macfarlane B. (2017). The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Stud. High. Educ. 42, 1194–1210. 10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009
60. Mansfield E. R. Helms B. P. (1982). Detecting Multicollinearity. Am. Stat. 36, 158–160. 10.1080/00031305.1982.10482818
61. Manton E. J. English D. E. (2006). Reasons for co-authorship in business journals and the extent of guest or gift authorships. Delta Epsilon J. 48, 86–95. Available online at: http://web.a.ebscohost.com.uaccess.univie.ac.at/ehost/detail/detail?vid=0&sid=24bcc532-e2ba-4b9f-bd84-86f78413d649%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=eft&AN=507882937
62. Manton E. J. English D. E. (2008). An empirical study of gift authorships in business journals. J. Educ. Bus. 83, 283–287. 10.3200/JOEB.83.5.283-287
63. Marusic A. Bosnja L. Jeroncic A. (2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE 6:e23477. 10.1371/journal.pone.002347721931600
64. McGrail M. R. Rickard C. M. Jones R. (2006). Publish or perish: a systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 25, 19–35. 10.1080/07294360500453053
65. Miller D. C. Salkind N. J. (2002). Handbook of Research Design & Social Measurement. London: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781412984386
66. Mosteller F. Tukey J. W. (1977). Data Analysis and Regression: A Second Course in Statistics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
67. Mowatt G. Shirran L. Grimshaw J. M. Rennie D. Flanagin A. Yank V. et al. (2002). Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 287, 2769–2771. 10.1001/jama.287.21.276912038907
68. Moylan E. C. Harold S. O'Neill C. Kowalczuk M. K. (2014). Open, single-blind, double-blind: Which peer review process do you prefer?. BMC Pharmacol. Toxicol. 15:55. 10.1186/2050-6511-15-5525266119
69. Murray R. (2013). Writing for Academic Journals, 3rd Edn. New York, NY: Open University Press.
70. Nolan R. Rocco T. (2009). Teaching graduate students in the social sciences writing for publications. Int. J. Teach. Learn. High. Educ. 20, 267–273. Available online at: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ864344
71. Oester S. Cigliano J. A. Hind-Ozan E. J. Parsons E. C. M. (2017). Why conferences matter – An illustration from the international marine conservation congress. Front. Mar. Sci. 4:257. 10.3389/fmars.2017.00257
72. Onen D. (2016). Appropriate conceptualization: the foundation of any solid quantitative research. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 14, 28–38. Available online at: https://academic-publishing.org/index.php/ejbrm?idArticle=433
73. Peters I. Kraker P. Lex E. Gumpenberger C. Gorraiz J. (2016). Research data explored: An extended analysis of citations and altmetrics. Scientometrics 107, 723–744. 10.1007/s11192-016-1887-427122647
74. Pruschak G. Hopp C. (2019). And the credit goes to … - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists, in Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management (Boston). 10.5465/AMBPP.2019.12441abstract
75. Resnik D. B. Tyle A. M. Black J. R. Kissling G. (2016). Authorship policies of scientific journals. J. Med. Ethics. 42, 199–202. 10.1136/medethics-2015-103171
76. Sauermann H. Haeussler C. (2017). Authorship and contribution disclosure. Sci. Adv. 3:e1700404. 10.1126/sciadv.170040429152564
77. Seuring S. Müller M. Westhaus M. Morana R. (2005). Conducting a literature review – The example of sustainability in supply chains, in Research Methodologies in Supply Chain Management, Kotzab H. Seuring S. Müller M. Reiner G. (Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag), 91–106. 10.1007/3-7908-1636-1_7
78. Shaw B. T. (1967). The Use of Quality and Quantity of Publication as Criteria for Evaluating Scientists. Washington, DC: United States Department of Agriculture.
79. Smith A. (2007). An inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Harriman House ed). Petersfield: Harriman House.
80. Smith R. (1997). Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? BMJ 314:992. 10.1136/bmj.314.7086.992
81. Spaulding M. (2009). Perceptions of academic honesty in online vs. face-to-face classrooms. J. Interact. Online Learn. 8, 183–198. Available online at: http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/pdf/8.3.1.pdf
82. Stallings W. M. Singhai S. (1970). Some observations on the relationship between research productivity and student evaluations of courses and teaching. Am. Sociol. 5, 141–143. 10.1080/00193089.1970.10532960
83. Strange K. (2008). Authorship: why not just toss a coin? Am. J. Physiol. Cell Physiol. 295, 567–575. 10.1152/ajpcell.00208.200818776156
84. Tarkang E. E. Kweku M. Zotor F. B. (2017). Publication practices and responsible authorship: a review article. J. Public Health Africa 8, 36–42. 10.4081/jphia.2017.72328748064
85. Thonre S. (2000). Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid. Based Nurs. 3, 68–70. 10.1136/ebn.3.3.68
86. Trappmann M. Krumpal I. Kirchner A. Jann B. (2014). Item sum: a new technique for asking quantitative sensitive questions. J. Surv. Stat. Methodol. 2, 58–77. 10.1093/jssam/smt019
87. Turner S. (2010). Research note: the silenced assistant. Reflections of invisible interpreters and research assistants. Asia Pac. Viewp. 51, 206–219. 10.1111/j.1467-8373.2010.01425.x
88. vom Brocke J. Simons A. Niehaves B. Niehaves B. Reimer K. (2009). Reconstructing the giant: on the importance of rigour in documenting the literature search process. in Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Systems (Verona).
89. Vuckovic-Dekic L. (2003). Authorship-coauthorship. Arch. Oncol. 11, 211–212. 10.2298/AOO0303211V
90. Wager E. (2007). Do medical journals provide clear and consistent guidelines on authorship? Medscape Gen. Med. 9:16. 18092023
91. Weathington B. J. Cunningham C. J. L. Pittenger D. J. (2012). Understanding Business Research. Hoboken: Wiley & Sons. 10.1002/9781118342978
92. Wegener C. Taggard L. (2013). Supervisor and student co-writing: an apprenticeship perspective. Forum Qual. Soc. Res. 14:14. Available online at: https://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/2030
93. Welfare L. E. Sackett C. R. (2010). Authorship in student-faculty collaborative research: perceptions of current and best practices. J. Acad. Ethics 8, 199–215. 10.1007/s10805-010-9119-7
94. Wislar J. S. Flanagin A. Fontanarosa P. B. DeAngelis C. D. (2011). Honorary and ghost authorship in hgih impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 343:d6128. 10.1136/bmj.d612822028479
95. Yang W. (2012). A genre analysis of PhD dissertation acknowledgements across disciplinary variations. LSP J. 3, 51–70. Available online at: https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/lspcog/article/view/4014
96. Zukauskas P. Vveinhardt J. Andriukaitiene R. (2018). Structure of research desing: expert evaluation, in Management Culture and Corporate Social Responsibility, eds Zukauskas P. Vveinhardt J. Andriukaitiene R. (London: IntechOpen), 155–188. 10.5772/intechopen.70637
97. Zutshi A. McDonald G. Kalejs L. (2012). Challenges in collaborative writing: addressing authorship attribution. Eur. Bus. Rev. 24, 28–46. 10.1108/09555341211191535
98. Zwart H. (2017). The catwalk and the mousetrap: reading Diederik Stapel's Derailment as a misconduct novel, in Tales of Research Misconduct, ed Zwart H. (Cham: Springer), 211–44. 10.1007/978-3-319-65554-3_11