Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Elise Smith, Zubin Master

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)243-267
Number of pages25
JournalAccountability in Research
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 19 2017
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

health science
best practice
interdisciplinary research
taxonomy
fairness
attribution
credit
dialogue
responsibility
health
knowledge

Keywords

  • Authorship
  • ethics and public policy
  • multidisciplinary research teams
  • publication
  • publication ethics
  • research integrity
  • responsible conduct of research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Library and Information Sciences

Cite this

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications. / Smith, Elise; Master, Zubin.

In: Accountability in Research, Vol. 24, No. 4, 19.05.2017, p. 243-267.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{49fa3c0368b44e69a08ed09cebceaa36,
title = "Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications",
abstract = "Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.",
keywords = "Authorship, ethics and public policy, multidisciplinary research teams, publication, publication ethics, research integrity, responsible conduct of research",
author = "Elise Smith and Zubin Master",
year = "2017",
month = "5",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1080/08989621.2017.1287567",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "243--267",
journal = "Accountability in Research",
issn = "0898-9621",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

AU - Smith, Elise

AU - Master, Zubin

PY - 2017/5/19

Y1 - 2017/5/19

N2 - Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.

AB - Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using “contributorship”—a system based on authors’ self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step “best practice” that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.

KW - Authorship

KW - ethics and public policy

KW - multidisciplinary research teams

KW - publication

KW - publication ethics

KW - research integrity

KW - responsible conduct of research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85013465838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85013465838&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/08989621.2017.1287567

DO - 10.1080/08989621.2017.1287567

M3 - Article

C2 - 28128975

AN - SCOPUS:85013465838

VL - 24

SP - 243

EP - 267

JO - Accountability in Research

JF - Accountability in Research

SN - 0898-9621

IS - 4

ER -