Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

Elise Smith, Bryn Williams-Jones, Zubin Master, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Adèle Paul-Hus, Min Shi, David B. Resnik

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague’s work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague’s research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers’ wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalScience and Engineering Ethics
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Authorship
science
Research Personnel
online survey
Research
group cohesion
integrity
Dissent and Disputes
Hostility
Misbehavior
gender
Values

Keywords

  • Authorship
  • Disagreement
  • Misbehavior
  • Norms
  • Research integrity
  • Research misconduct

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Issues, ethics and legal aspects
  • Health Policy
  • Management of Technology and Innovation

Cite this

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science. / Smith, Elise; Williams-Jones, Bryn; Master, Zubin; Larivière, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Paul-Hus, Adèle; Shi, Min; Resnik, David B.

In: Science and Engineering Ethics, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, Elise ; Williams-Jones, Bryn ; Master, Zubin ; Larivière, Vincent ; Sugimoto, Cassidy R. ; Paul-Hus, Adèle ; Shi, Min ; Resnik, David B. / Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science. In: Science and Engineering Ethics. 2019.
@article{040369aca529460a94bf32f48a01a5f8,
title = "Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science",
abstract = "Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6{\%}) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6{\%}), undermining of a colleague’s work during meetings/talks (16.4{\%}), cutting corners on research (8.3{\%}), sabotaging a colleague’s research (6.4{\%}), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3{\%}). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers’ wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.",
keywords = "Authorship, Disagreement, Misbehavior, Norms, Research integrity, Research misconduct",
author = "Elise Smith and Bryn Williams-Jones and Zubin Master and Vincent Larivi{\`e}re and Sugimoto, {Cassidy R.} and Ad{\`e}le Paul-Hus and Min Shi and Resnik, {David B.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Science and Engineering Ethics",
issn = "1353-3452",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

AU - Smith, Elise

AU - Williams-Jones, Bryn

AU - Master, Zubin

AU - Larivière, Vincent

AU - Sugimoto, Cassidy R.

AU - Paul-Hus, Adèle

AU - Shi, Min

AU - Resnik, David B.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague’s work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague’s research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers’ wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.

AB - Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who “contribute significantly” to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague’s work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague’s research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers’ wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.

KW - Authorship

KW - Disagreement

KW - Misbehavior

KW - Norms

KW - Research integrity

KW - Research misconduct

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85067082393&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85067082393&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4

DO - 10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85067082393

JO - Science and Engineering Ethics

JF - Science and Engineering Ethics

SN - 1353-3452

ER -