Abstract
Authorship on publications has been described as a “meal ticket” for researchers in academic settings. Given the importance of authorship, inappropriate publication credit is a pertinent ethical issue. This paper presents an overview of authorship problems and policies intended to address them. Previous work has identified three types of inappropriate authorship practices: plagiarism, giving unwarranted credit and failure to give expected credit. Guidelines from universities, journals and professional organizations provide standards about requirements of authors and may describe inappropriate practices; to a lesser extent, they provide guidance for determining authorship order. While policies on authorship may be helpful in some circumstances, they are not panaceas. Formal guidelines may not address serious power imbalances in working relationships and may be difficult to enforce in the face of particular departmental or institutional cultures. In order to develop more effective and useful guidelines, we should gain more knowledge about how students and faculty members perceive policies as well as their understanding of how policies will best benefit collaborators.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Huth EJ (1983) Responsibilities of coauthorship.Annals of Internal Medicine 99: 266–7.
American Psychological Association (1992) Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.American Psychologist 47: 1597–1611.
Anderson C (1993) Michigan gets an expensive lesson.Science 262: 23
Ibid. p. 23.
Goodyear R K, Crego C A & Johnston M W (1992) Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: a study of critical incidents.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 23: 203–210.
Swazey J P, Anderson M S & Lewis K S (1993) Ethical problems in academic research.American Scientist 81: 542–553.
Owens R G & Hardley E M (1985) Plagiarism in psychology — what can and should be done?Bulletin of the British Psychological Society 38: 331–333.
Jackson C I (1991)Honor in Science. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society: Research Triangle Park, NC.
Hamilton D P (1991) Baltimore throws in the towel.Science 252: 768–770.
See note 3 above.
Hilts P J (1993) Scholar who sued wins $1.2 million.New York Times. September 25, p. A 23.
Ross M & Sicoly F (1979) Egocentric biases in availability and attribution.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 322–336.
Glass B (1965) The ethical basis of science.Science 150: 1257–1258.
Fine M A & Kurdek L A (1993) Reflections on determing authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations.American Psychologist 48: 1141–1147.
Shapiro D W, Wenger N S & Shapiro M F (1994) The contributions of authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers.Journal of the American Medical Association 271: 438–442.
See note 6 above.
“Plagiarism” was not defined for subjects in the survey. (Personal communication with Kim Martin, office of Judith Swazey, The Acadia Institute, Bar Harbor, ME, March 20, 1995). It is possible that some respondents construed the term to include broader issues of “failing to give expected credit;” however, the researchers undoubtedly intended it to mean lifting of written work. This is what the National Academy of Sciences means by the term, and the Swazey survey drew from the NAS’s categories of “behaviors in the research environment the require attention” (note 5 above, p.542).
Graduate Student Association (1990)Graduate Student Bill of Rights and Responsibilities. University of California, Davis.
See note 14 above, p. 1145.
Huth E J (1986) Guidelines for authorship of medical papers.Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 269–274.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1991) Guidelines for authorship.New England Journal of Medicine 324: 424–428.
See note 15 above, p. 442.
See note 2 above, p. 1609.
Costa M M & Gatz M (1992) Determination of authorship credit in published dissertations.Psychological Science 3: 354–357.
Spiegel D & Keith-Speigel P (1970) Assignment of publication credit: ethics and practices of psychologists.American Psychologist 25: 738–747.
See note 24 above, p. 357.
Shulkin D, Goin J & Rennie D (1993) Patterns of authorship among chairmen of departments of medicine.Academic Medicine 68: 688–692.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rose, M., Fischer, K. Policies and perspectives on authorship. Sci Eng Ethics 1, 361–370 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02583254
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02583254