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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ana Marušić, Lana Bošnjak, Ana Jerončić
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