A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. METHODS: We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research f...
Main Authors: | , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2011-01-01
|
Series: | PLoS ONE |
Online Access: | http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3169533?pdf=render |
id |
doaj-ad972d2a69054441b3c974f2d645e9df |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-ad972d2a69054441b3c974f2d645e9df2020-11-25T01:42:29ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032011-01-0169e2347710.1371/journal.pone.0023477A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.Ana MarušićLana BošnjakAna JerončićBACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. METHODS: We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. INTERPRETATION: High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3169533?pdf=render |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Ana Marušić Lana Bošnjak Ana Jerončić |
spellingShingle |
Ana Marušić Lana Bošnjak Ana Jerončić A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS ONE |
author_facet |
Ana Marušić Lana Bošnjak Ana Jerončić |
author_sort |
Ana Marušić |
title |
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. |
title_short |
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. |
title_full |
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. |
title_fullStr |
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. |
title_full_unstemmed |
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. |
title_sort |
systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. |
publisher |
Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
series |
PLoS ONE |
issn |
1932-6203 |
publishDate |
2011-01-01 |
description |
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. METHODS: We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. INTERPRETATION: High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines. |
url |
http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3169533?pdf=render |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT anamarusic asystematicreviewofresearchonthemeaningethicsandpracticesofauthorshipacrossscholarlydisciplines AT lanabosnjak asystematicreviewofresearchonthemeaningethicsandpracticesofauthorshipacrossscholarlydisciplines AT anajeroncic asystematicreviewofresearchonthemeaningethicsandpracticesofauthorshipacrossscholarlydisciplines AT anamarusic systematicreviewofresearchonthemeaningethicsandpracticesofauthorshipacrossscholarlydisciplines AT lanabosnjak systematicreviewofresearchonthemeaningethicsandpracticesofauthorshipacrossscholarlydisciplines AT anajeroncic systematicreviewofresearchonthemeaningethicsandpracticesofauthorshipacrossscholarlydisciplines |
_version_ |
1725035971403055104 |