A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.
<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields.<h4>Methods</h4>We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2011-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0023477&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | <h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields.<h4>Methods</h4>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.<h4>Results</h4>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.<h4>Interpretation</h4>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. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1932-6203 |