IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jpubli/v6y2018i3p37-d163981.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations

Author

Listed:
  • Sameer Kumar

    (Asia-Europe Institute, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur 50603, Malaysia)

Abstract

Increasing specialization, changes in the institutional incentives for publication, and a host of other reasons have brought about a marked trend towards co-authored articles among researchers. These changes have impacted Science and Technology (S&T) policies worldwide. Co-authorship is often considered to be a reliable proxy for assessing research collaborations at micro, meso, and macro levels. Although co-authorship in a scholarly publication brings numerous benefits to the participating authors, it has also given rise to issues of publication integrity, such as ghost authorships and honorary authorships. The code of conduct of bodies such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) make it clear that only those who have significantly contributed to the study should be on the authorship list. Those who have contributed little have to be appropriately “acknowledged” in footnotes or in the acknowledgement section. However, these principles are sometimes transgressed, and a complete solution still remains elusive.

Suggested Citation

  • Sameer Kumar, 2018. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:37-:d:163981
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/3/37/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/6/3/37/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Blaise Cronin & Debora Shaw & Kathryn La Barre, 2003. "A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 54(9), pages 855-871, July.
    2. Donald Deb. Beaver, 2001. "Reflections on Scientific Collaboration (and its study): Past, Present, and Future," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(3), pages 365-377, November.
    3. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    4. Jeremy P. Birnholtz, 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, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 57(13), pages 1758-1770, November.
    5. Alison Abbott, 2002. "Dispute over first authorship lands researchers in dock," Nature, Nature, vol. 419(6902), pages 4-4, September.
    6. Blaise Cronin, 2004. "Bowling alone together: Academic writing as distributed cognition," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 55(6), pages 557-560, April.
    7. Branco Ponomariov & Craig Boardman, 2016. "What is co-authorship?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 109(3), pages 1939-1963, December.
    8. Alberto Pepe & Marko A. Rodriguez, 2010. "Collaboration in sensor network research: an in-depth longitudinal analysis of assortative mixing patterns," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 84(3), pages 687-701, September.
    9. Sameer Kumar & Kuru Ratnavelu, 2016. "Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associations: Evidence from an International Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    10. K.C. Garg & P. Padhi, 2001. "A study of collaboration in laser science and technology," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 51(2), pages 415-427, June.
    11. Grit Laudel, 2002. "What do we measure by co-authorships?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 3-15, April.
    12. McNutt, Marcia & Bradford, Monica & Drazen, Jeffrey, 2018. "Transparency in Authors’ Contributions and Responsibilities to Promote Integrity in Scientific Publication," OSF Preprints asywp, Center for Open Science.
    13. Blaise Cronin, 2001. "Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 52(7), pages 558-569.
    14. Katz, J. Sylvan & Martin, Ben R., 1997. "What is research collaboration?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-18, March.
    15. William W. Hood & Concepción S. Wilson, 2001. "The Literature of Bibliometrics, Scientometrics, and Informetrics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 52(2), pages 291-314, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hugo Horta & Shihui Feng & João M. Santos, 2022. "Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 523-543, January.
    2. Pablo Dorta-González & María Isabel Dorta-González, 2022. "Collaboration Effect by Co-Authorship on Academic Citation and Social Attention of Research," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, June.
    3. Tanmoy Konar, 2021. "Author-Suggested, Weighted Citation Index: A Novel Approach for Determining the Contribution of Individual Researchers," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-8, July.
    4. Edson Melo Souza & Jose Eduardo Storopoli & Wonder Alexandre Luz Alves, 2022. "Scientific Contribution List Categories Investigation: a comparison between three mainstream medical journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(5), pages 2249-2276, May.
    5. Alex O. Holcombe, 2019. "Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-11, July.
    6. Hsuan-I Liu & Mu-Hsuan Huang, 2022. "Research contribution pattern analysis of multinational authorship papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1783-1800, April.
    7. Shaista Rashid & Amira Khattak & Murtaza Ashiq & Shafiq Ur Rehman & Muhammad Rashid Rasool, 2021. "Educational Landscape of Virtual Reality in Higher Education: Bibliometric Evidences of Publishing Patterns and Emerging Trends," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-17, April.
    8. Young-Hwan Lee, 2021. "Determinants of research productivity in Korean Universities: the role of research funding," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 1462-1486, October.
    9. Jingda Ding & Chao Liu & Qiao Zheng & Wei Cai, 2021. "A new method of co-author credit allocation based on contributor roles taxonomy: proof of concept and evaluation using papers published in PLOS ONE," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(9), pages 7561-7581, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dorte Henriksen, 2016. "The rise in co-authorship in the social sciences (1980–2013)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(2), pages 455-476, May.
    2. Paul-Hus, Adèle & Mongeon, Philippe & Sainte-Marie, Maxime & Larivière, Vincent, 2017. "The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 80-87.
    3. Anna Małgorzata Kamińska & Łukasz Opaliński & Łukasz Wyciślik, 2022. "The Landscapes of Sustainability in the Library and Information Science: Collaboration Insights," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-23, December.
    4. Gómez-Ferri, Javier & González-Alcaide, Gregorio & LLopis-Goig, Ramón, 2019. "Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(4).
    5. Cristina Arhiliuc & Raf Guns, 2023. "Disciplinary collaboration rates in the social sciences and humanities: what is the influence of classification type?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(6), pages 3419-3436, June.
    6. Ding, Ying, 2011. "Scientific collaboration and endorsement: Network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 187-203.
    7. Jo Royle & Louisa Coles & Dorothy Williams & Paul Evans, 2007. "Publishing in international journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 71(1), pages 59-86, April.
    8. Chen, Kaihua & Zhang, Yi & Fu, Xiaolan, 2019. "International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 149-168.
    9. Alberto Baccini & Eugenio Petrovich, 2022. "Normative versus strategic accounts of acknowledgment data: The case of the top-five journals of economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 603-635, January.
    10. Dorte Henriksen, 2018. "What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1395-1421, March.
    11. Barry Bozeman & Daniel Fay & Catherine Slade, 2013. "Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 1-67, February.
    12. Ch Peidu, 2019. "Can authors’ position in the ascription be a measure of dominance?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 121(3), pages 1527-1547, December.
    13. Adèle Paul-Hus & Adrián A Díaz-Faes & Maxime Sainte-Marie & Nadine Desrochers & Rodrigo Costas & Vincent Larivière, 2017. "Beyond funding: Acknowledgement patterns in biomedical, natural and social sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-14, October.
    14. Franceschet, Massimo & Costantini, Antonio, 2010. "The effect of scholar collaboration on impact and quality of academic papers," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 540-553.
    15. Hamid Bouabid & Hind Achachi, 2022. "Size of science team at university and internal co-publications: science policy implications," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6993-7013, December.
    16. Sameer Kumar & Kuru Ratnavelu, 2016. "Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associations: Evidence from an International Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Máxima Bolaños-Pizarro & Bart Thijs & Wolfgang Glänzel, 2010. "Cardiovascular research in Spain. A comparative scientometric study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(2), pages 509-526, November.
    18. Sameer Kumar & Jariah Mohd. Jan, 2013. "Mapping research collaborations in the business and management field in Malaysia, 1980–2010," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 97(3), pages 491-517, December.
    19. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    20. Benjamin Clark, 2011. "Influences and conflicts of federal policies in academic–industrial scientific collaboration," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 36(5), pages 514-545, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jpubli:v:6:y:2018:i:3:p:37-:d:163981. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.