David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Behavior 18 (1):44 – 58 (2008)
Realizing a comprehensive approach to evidence-based practice in psychology requires the collaboration of academic researchers and practicing clinicians. Increased collaboration is likely to contribute to the growing trend of multi-investigator projects, multiple-authored publications, and the subsequent conflicts regarding authorship credit and order. Recommendations and guidance on determining authorship credit and order are available in the literature; however, few concrete tools are available to assist in determining authorship credit and order. A model policy on authorship is presented. The model policy was derived from recommendations published in the literature, in ethical standards, and in the editorial policies of both psychological and the biomedical fields. The model policy can be adopted by academic and clinical organizations, and is a useful tool for preventing authorship conflicts and encouraging collaboration in clinical research.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Barry Bozeman & Jan Youtie (forthcoming). Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-Authoring. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-27.
Cheryl Stenmark, Alison Antes, Laura Martin, Zhanna Bagdasarov, James Johnson, Lynn Devenport & Michael Mumford (2010). Ethics in the Humanities: Findings From Focus Groups. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (4):285-300.
Similar books and articles
Joost P. H. Drenth (1996). Proliferation of Authors on Research Reports in Medicine. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (4):469-480.
Jason Borenstein (2011). Responsible Authorship in Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical Challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):355-364.
Anne Hudson Jones (2003). Can Authorship Policies Help Prevent Scientific Misconduct? What Role for Scientific Societies? Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):243-256.
David B. Resnik & Zubin Master (2011). Criteria for Authorship in Bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10):17 - 21.
Eugen Tarnow (1999). The Authorship List in Science: Junior Physicists' Perceptions of Who Appears and Why. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1):73-88.
Mary R. Rose & Karla Fischer (1998). Do Authorship Policies Impact Students' Judgments of Perceived Wrongdoing? Ethics and Behavior 8 (1):59 – 79.
Barton Moffatt (2011). Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship. Accountability in Research 18 (2):76-90.
Elise Smith & Bryn Williams-Jones (2012). Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):199-212.
Mary Rose & Karla Fischer (1995). Policies and Perspectives on Authorship. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):361-370.
Sarah E. Oberlander & Robert J. Spencer (2006). Graduate Students and the Culture of Authorship. Ethics and Behavior 16 (3):217 – 232.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads15 ( #199,203 of 1,778,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #167,974 of 1,778,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?