1
|
Goddiksen MP, Johansen MW, Armond AC, Clavien C, Hogan L, Kovács N, Merit MT, Olsson IAS, Quinn U, Santos JB, Santos R, Schöpfer C, Varga O, Wall PJ, Sandøe P, Lund TB. "The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0280018. [PMID: 36634045 PMCID: PMC9836317 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0280018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/16/2022] [Accepted: 12/19/2022] [Indexed: 01/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mads Paludan Goddiksen
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- * E-mail:
| | | | - Anna Catharina Armond
- Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - Christine Clavien
- Institut Éthique Histoire Humanités, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Linda Hogan
- School of Religion, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Nóra Kovács
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - Marcus Tang Merit
- Institute of Architecture, Urbanism and Landscape, Royal Danish Academy, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - I. Anna S. Olsson
- i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Una Quinn
- School of Ecumenics, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Júlio Borlido Santos
- i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Rita Santos
- i3S – Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, Porto, Portugal
| | - Céline Schöpfer
- Institut Éthique Histoire Humanités, Université de Genève, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Orsolya Varga
- Department of Public Health and Epidemiology, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary
| | - P. J. Wall
- ADAPT Centre, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Peter Sandøe
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
- Department of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Thomas Bøker Lund
- Department of Food and Resource Economics, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Penders B, Lutz P, Shaw DM, Townend DMR. Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research. LIFE SCIENCES, SOCIETY AND POLICY 2020; 16:4. [PMID: 32567015 PMCID: PMC7309978 DOI: 10.1186/s40504-020-00099-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/05/2019] [Accepted: 06/02/2020] [Indexed: 06/11/2023]
Abstract
Ideally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Penders
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands.
| | - Peter Lutz
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands
- School of Information Technology, Halmstad University, Halmstad, Sweden
| | - David M Shaw
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - David M R Townend
- Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, Maastricht, NL-6200 MD, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Penders B. Beyond Trust: Plagiarism and Truth. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2018; 15:29-32. [PMID: 29234992 PMCID: PMC5897471 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-017-9825-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2017] [Accepted: 07/07/2017] [Indexed: 06/07/2023]
Abstract
Academic misconduct distorts the relationship between scientific practice and the knowledge it produces. The relationship between science and the knowledge it produces is, however, not something universally agreed upon. In this paper I will critically discuss the moral status of an act of research misconduct, namely plagiarism, in the context of different epistemological positions. While from a positivist view of science, plagiarism only influences trust in science but not the content of the scientific corpus, from a constructivist point of view both are at stake. Consequently, I argue that discussions of research misconduct and responsible research ought to be explicitly informed by the authors' views on the relationship between science and the knowledge it produces.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Penders
- Care and Public Health Research Institute (Caphri), Department of Health, Ethics and Society (HES), Maastricht University, PO Box 616, NL-6200MD, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Penders B. All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science. Account Res 2017; 24:433-450. [PMID: 29035082 DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2017.1386565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/18/2022]
Abstract
The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of authorship practices among nutrition scientists employed at universities, contract research organizations, and in food industry, I argue that two different modi operandi emerge when it comes to authorship. These different ways of working produce different collaborative approaches, different credit distribution strategies amongst collaborators, and different value placed upon (the pursuit of) authorship. These different valuation processes are neither explicit nor recognizable to those reading (and judging) author lists. As a consequence, in the politics of authorship, the names standing atop a scientific publication in nutrition science represent different types of value to both the individuals and employing organizations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bart Penders
- a Department of Health, Ethics & Society, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI) , Maastricht University , Maastricht , The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Shaw D. A Response to Penders: The Disvalue of Vagueness in Authorship. JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2017; 14:17. [PMID: 28205103 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-017-9770-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/19/2016] [Accepted: 09/15/2016] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- David Shaw
- Institute for Biomedical Ethics, University of Basel, Bernoullistrasse 28, 4056, Basel, Switzerland.
- Department of Health, Ethics and Society, CAPHRI Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Ashby M. The Ninth Circle: Who and What Do We Trust In Today's World? JOURNAL OF BIOETHICAL INQUIRY 2017; 14:7-12. [PMID: 28236152 DOI: 10.1007/s11673-017-9777-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/06/2023]
Affiliation(s)
- Michael Ashby
- Palliative Care Service, Royal Hobart Hospital, Tasmanian Health Service, and School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tasmania, 1st Floor, Peacock Building, Repatriation Centre, 90 Davey Street, Hobart, TAS, 7000, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|