Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association’s standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author’s ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association’s ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Frank Macrina, Vice President of Research at Virginia Commonwealth University, influenced our framing of this study, through his presentation The changing dimensions of scientific authorship, at the Association of Practical and Professional Ethics Meeting in 2006. This presentation is on file with the first author.

  2. Coding criteria derive from Instructions to Authors over a 30-year period (e.g., Anderson 2007, 2011; ASR 2011a; Johnson 1981; Marwell 1990; Rury et al. 1995) and current issues arising from changing technology (Young 2006).

  3. Guidelines for authorship of The Journal of Science and Engineering Ethics draw upon author guidelines developed by the International Committee on Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE 2009).

  4. See Footnote 1.

References

  • American Educational Research Association. (1991). Proposed ethical standards for the American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 20(9), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association. (1992). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association. Educational Researcher, 21(7), 23–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association. (2000). Ethical standards. http://www.aera.net/AboutAERA/Default.aspx?menu_id=90&id=222. Accessed April 23, 2011.

  • American Educational Research Association. (2006). Standards for reporting on empirical social science research in AERA publication. http://www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx?menu_id=32&id=1850. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • American Educational Research Association. (2007). General information for contributors. http://www.aera.net/publications/Default.aspx?menu_id=32&id=503, Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • American Educational Research Association. (2008). Conflicts of interest policy. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 375–378.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association. (2009). Standards for reporting on humanities-oriented research in AERA publications. Educational Researcher, 38(6), 481–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association. (2011). Code of ethics. Educational Researcher, 40(3),145–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Educational Research Association, the American Psychological Association, and the National Council on Measurement in Education. (2009). Standards for educational and psychological testing. http://teststandards.org/Accessed April 27, 2011.

  • American Educational Research Journal. (2011). More about this journal. http://aer.sagepub.com/. Accessed April 23, 2011 (manuscript submission).

  • American Psychological Association (APA). (1951). Committee on ethical standards in psychology, ethical standards in writing and publishing, section 5. American Psychologist, 6(8), 443–452.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (1952). Discussion on ethics. American Psychologist, 7(8), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (1958). Standards of ethical behavior for psychologists: Report of the committee on ethical standards of psychologists. American Psychologist, 13(6), 266–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47(12), 1597–1611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2002a). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2002b). Certification of compliance with ethical issues. American Psychologist, 57, 1060–1073.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2007). Ethics office: Responsible conduct for research. http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/index.aspx. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • American Psychological Association. (2009). Complying with ethical, legal, and policy requirements. Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed., pp. 231–235). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct: 2010 amendments. http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx. Accessed April 24, 2011.

  • American Psychological Association. (2011a). Author and reviewers resource center. http://www.apa.org/journals/authors/homepage.html. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • American Psychological Association. (2011b). Journal statistics and operations data. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/statistics.aspx. Accessed April 22, 2011.

  • American Sociological Association. (n.d.). Confidential report to the editor. http://www2.asanet.org/journals/asr/ReportEditor.doc. Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • American Sociological Association. (1999). American sociological association code of ethics (pp. 1–30). http://www.asanet.org/images/asa/docs/pdf/CodeofEthics.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • American Sociological Association. (2009). Editors report for 2009. http://www.asanet.org/journals/editors_report_2009.cfm. Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • American Sociological Review. (2011a). Resources for manuscript submission. http://www.sagepub.com/journals/Journal201969#tabview=manuscriptSubmission. Accessed April 23, 2011.

  • American Sociological Review. (2011b). Transfer of copyright journal contributor publishing agreement. http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/societyimages/asr/ASR%20-%20TOC2.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • Anderson, N. (2007). Instructions to authors. American Psychologist. http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/submission.html. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • Anderson, N. (2011). Instructions to authors. American Psychologist. http://www.apa.org/journals/amp/submission.html. Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • Anderson, M. S., Seashore, K., & Earle, J. (1994). Disciplinary and departmental effects on observations of faculty and graduate student misconduct. The Journal of Higher Education, 65(3), 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Association of American Medical Colleges. (1994). Teaching the responsible conduct of research through a case study approach: A handbook for instructors. Washington, D.C.: Association of American Medical Colleges.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benos, D. J., Fabres, J., Farmer, J., Gutierrez, J. P., Hennessy, K., Kosek, D., et al. (2005). Ethics and scientific publication. Advances in Physiology Education, 29, 59–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bridgwater, C. A., Bornstein, P. H., & Walkenbach, J. (1981). Ethical issues and the assignment of credit. American Psychologist, 36, 524–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, L. D. (2005). Scientific authorship part two: History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589, 31–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Columbia University. (n.d.). Responsible authorship and peer review, instruction module. http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • Committee on Professional Ethics. (2005). COPE policies and procedures. American Sociological Association. http://www.asanet.org/cs/root/leftnav/ethics/cope_policies_and_procedures. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • Committee on Publication Ethics. (2011). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. http://www.publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • DeVries, R., Anderson, M. S., & Martinson, B. C. (2006). Normal misbehavior: Scientists talk about the ethics of research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1(1), 43–50. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1483899/. Accessed April 20, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorn, D. S., & Long, G. L. (1974). Brief remarks on the Association’s code of ethics. The American Sociologist, 9(February), 31–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, M. F. (1996). Developing ethical standards for responsible research: Why? Form? Functions? Process? Outcomes? Journal of Dental Research, 75(2), 832–836.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Institute of Medicine. (2002). Promoting integrity in research through education. In N. R. C. Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments, Institute of Medicine (Ed.), Integrity in scientific research (pp. 84–111). Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, National Research Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2009). ICMJE website. http://www.icmje.org/#author. Accessed April 26, 2011.

  • Jacobs, J. A. (2005). Editors report for 2005, American Sociological Association. http://www2.asanet.org/footnotes/apr06/departments.html#Editorsreport. Accessed April 21, 2011.

  • Johnson, D. W. (Ed.). (1981). Front matter. American Educational Research Journal, 18(1), i–vii.

  • Levine, F. (2007). Council minutes. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macrina, F. L. (2011). Teaching authorship and publication practices in the biomedical and life sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (this issue).

  • Marwell, G. (Ed.). (1990). Front matter. American Sociological Review, 69(6), v. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28199002%2955%3A1%3C%3AFM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • Nagy, T. (2005). Ethics in plain English: An illustrative casebook for psychologists (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Academies. (2011). Online ethics center for engineering and research. http://www.onlineethics.org/. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • National Institutes of Health NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts. (1992). Requirement for instruction in the responsible conduct of research in national research service award institutional training grants. NIH GUIDE, 21(43). November 27, 1992, P.T. 44. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not92-236.html. Accessed April 24, 2011.

  • O’Sullivan, P., & Bebeau, M. J. (2004, April). Defining research integrity and conceptual frameworks for assessment. Symposium conducted at the AERA annual meeting, San Diego, CA.

  • Office of Research Integrity, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (ORI). (2009). Responsible conduct for research. http://ori.dhhs.gov/education/. Accessed April 24, 2011.

  • Rhoades, L. (1981). A history of the American Sociological Association, 1905–1980 Chapter 8, growth and turmoil. http://www.asanet.org/about/association_history.cfm. Accessed April 26, 2011.

  • Riesenberg, D. (1990). The order of authorship: Who’s on first? Journal of the American Medical Association, 265(14), 1857–1857.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rositch, K. J. (2005). A history of the American Sociological Association, 1981–2004 Chapter 1, the 1980s: Critical challenges and new resolve. http://www.asanet.org/about/Centennial_History_Index.cfm. Accessed May 26 2011.

  • Rury, J. L., Ashton, P., & Algina, J. (Eds.). (1995). Front matter. American Educational Research Journal, 18(1), i–ix.

  • Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit. Ethics & Behavior, 15(1), 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheetz, M. D. (2001). Promoting integrity through “Instructions to Authors:” A preliminary analysis. Office of Research Integrity (ORI). http://ori.dhhs.gov/documents/instructions_authors.pdf. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • Schneider, B., Carnoy, M., Kilpatrick, J., Schmidt, W. H., & Shavelson, R. J. (2005). Estimating causal effects using experimental and observational designs: A think tank white paper. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spiegel, D., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1970). Assignment of publication credit: Ethics and practices of psychologists. American Psychologist, 35, 738–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spier, R., & Bird, S. J. (Eds.). (2007). Instructions for authors. Science and Engineering Ethics. http://www.springer.com/social+sciences/applied+ethics/journal/11948. Accessed April 20, 2011.

  • Strike, K. A., Anderson, M. S., Curren, R., van Geel, T., Pritchard, I., & Robertson, E. (2002). Ethical standards of the American Educational Research Association: Cases and commentary. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viadera, D. (2007). AERA stresses value of alternatives to ‘Gold Standard’. Education Week, 26(33), 12–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, J. (2006). Microsoft Word’s hidden tags reveal once-anonymous peer reviewers. Chronicle of Higher Education, 52(33), A41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimbardo, P. (2002). American Psychologist task force report: Clarifying mission, coverage, communication, and review process. American Psychologist, 57(3), 213–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, 15-136 Moos Tower, 515 Delaware S.E., Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Muriel J. Bebeau

  2. Holloran Center for Ethical Leadership in the Professions, University of St Thomas School of Law, MSL 337, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN, 55403, USA

    Verna Monson

Authors
  1. Muriel J. Bebeau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Verna Monson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muriel J. Bebeau.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bebeau, M.J., Monson, V. Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices. Sci Eng Ethics 17, 365–388 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation