“The power of attribution is the power to create history.” – Bernard Madoff
In today’s changing world, the ethics of authorship are getting more complex. As research projects get bigger and more complex, figuring out who gets credit is key for researchers, schools, and publishers. This piece looks at how to fairly share credit in 2024 and the future.
Open science, AI in writing, and the push for honest research have changed how we think about authorship. It’s important to know how to decide on authorship, solve disputes, and keep research honest. This is vital for anyone in scholarly publishing.
Key Takeaways
- The CRediT Taxonomy offers a way to credit 14 different roles in research1.
- Who gets to be an author is based on clear rules, not just picking CRediT roles1.
- Editors should make sure to include researchers from poorer and middle-income countries for fairness2.
- Authors using AI tools must say they’re using them and take full responsibility for their work2.
- Big projects often have many people working on them, so tracking everyone’s role is crucial3.
As the world of publishing changes, so must our views on authorship ethics. By being open, sticking to strict standards, and working together, we can make sure credit is given fairly and with respect. This approach will guide authorship in 2024 and the future.
Understanding Authorship and Its Determination
Figuring out who should get credit for research is key to ethics in science. The APA Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of4 set rules for authorship. They say authors should only claim work they really helped with. This keeps research honest and trustworthy.
APA Guidelines for Determining Authorship Credit
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) says authorship is for big contributions. This includes coming up with the idea, getting the data, analyzing it, writing the paper, and making sure it’s ready for publication4. Schools also have rules to make sure research is done right, including how to share credit4.
The Importance of Negotiating Authorship Early
Talking about who will get credit early is key to avoiding problems later. Negotiating authorship5 with your team and checking in often can stop arguments. The main author makes sure everyone knows their part and keeps the team working together5.
Following the rules and talking about authorship early helps keep research honest. It’s good for everyone involved and builds trust in science4.
Negotiating Authorship Fairly
Start talking about authorship right at the project’s beginning. Think about what each team member will bring. More people are working together, making papers in physical education research bigger. This means more authors are involved6. Sometimes, authorship changes as the project grows to match everyone’s true role. Deciding who is an author is not and tools like the “CalculAuthor”7 help.
Common Reasons for Authorship Changes
There are a few reasons why authorship might change in a team project. These include:
- Adding new experts to the team
- Someone’s role growing bigger in the project
- Working together leads to more research in physical education6
Most people don’t know the rules for authorship in research. This can cause confusion for new scholars6. To make sure everyone gets credit fairly, talk about authorship early and clearly.
| Authorship Criteria | Description |
|---|---|
| Substantial Contributions | Authors must have done a lot of work, like coming up with the idea, writing, and agreeing to be responsible for the study6 |
| Authorship Order | The order of authors matters a lot. It affects how people see and judge the work. This can change based on the field, like education or health sciences7 |
| Negotiating Authorship | Advisors should help students talk openly about authorship to make sure everyone is treated fairly in publishing6 |
Talking about authorship early helps teams use the CalculAuthor tool better. This tool helps figure out who gets credit for what. It makes sure everyone gets the right amount of recognition for their work7.
“Physical education scholars may have differing perspectives on the significance of author order, such as exercise science faculty viewing the last author as head of the laboratory, while education scholars often value the first author as most prestigious”6
Having clear authorship agreements from the start can prevent disagreements. It makes sure everyone gets the credit they deserve for their part in the research67.
Addressing Authorship Concerns and Disputes
Keeping research authorship honest and clear is key to trust in science. When authorship issues come up, talking things out, understanding each other, and being open to change is important. NIH policy says authorship is for those who really helped with the research, wrote or checked the paper, and can stand by the work8. Adding people just for the sake of it can hurt trust and the truth of science8.
Steps for Resolving Authorship Disagreements
First, try to fix authorship disagreements with the team. These issues happen a lot in research and should be solved fairly and quickly8. But, the NIH might find it hard to make decisions on people outside the team or who used to work there8.
If talking it out doesn’t work, look for outside help or check your school’s rules. Being biased because of money, personal, or work reasons can lead to authorship problems8. Working together and in good faith is key to solving these issues8.
The NIH has rules for authorship issues on papers or talks funded by the NIH and done by NIH staff8. Try to settle disputes without formal steps within three months before going to a higher level8. If that doesn’t work, the NIH can look into it and has rules for solving these problems fairly8.
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Responses Analyzed | 197910 |
| Trust Scores Above 2.5 | Favored trust in the institution10 |
| Trust Scores Below 2.5 | Indicated mistrust in the institution10 |
| Respondents Preferring Institution’s Administration to Investigate Disputes | 17.8%910 |
| Respondents from Institutions with Declared Authorship Policy | 25%10 |
| Trust Scores for Respondents from Institutions with Declared Authorship Policy | 3.06 out of 4.00 points10 |
| Gift Authorship Reported by Respondents from Institutions with Declared Authorship Policy | 31.3%10 |
| Gift Authorship Reported by Respondents from Institutions without Declared Authorship Policy | 55.4%10 |
In short, dealing with authorship issues needs a proactive, open, and team effort. Researchers should aim to solve problems directly, get advice when needed, and follow the rules to keep research honest8910.
Authorship Ethics: Navigating Contributions and Credit in 2024
As research changes, making sure everyone gets fair credit in team projects is key11. It’s vital to be open and follow the rules to keep research honest and build trust in science.
Figuring out who should be listed as an author is a big step in team research11. Authors need to really contribute to the work, help write or edit the paper, agree on where it gets published, check all versions before sending it in, and own the content11. This makes sure authorship is clear and honest.
For big team projects, it’s important to pick who truly deserves author credit11. Everyone who should be listed as an author needs to be included. Decisions on who gets credit should be made together before sending the paper out for publication.
| Authorship Criteria | Percentage of Non-Compliance |
|---|---|
| Honorary authors or ghost authors | 29.5%12 |
| Witnessed misbehavior related to authorship, mentorship, and training | 41%12 |
| Reported witnessing academic misconduct among peers | 21%12 |
| Personally engaged in misbehavior in research, including issues related to authorship | 11%12 |
| Industry-driven randomised trials with ghost authorship presence | 5%12 |
Using AI tools to help write content doesn’t count as authorship11. Authors are fully responsible for their work’s originality and accuracy. Any changes in authorship must be agreed upon by all, with clear reasons given11.
It’s important to give credit to scientific writers and those who helped with experiments or data11. People who didn’t meet authorship standards but helped should be thanked in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section11.
In 2024, the rules on authorship and credit are still changing13. The ICMJE Recommendations and BMJ’s policies guide us13. As research gets more team-based, handling these ethical issues well is key. It helps keep research honest and builds trust in science.
The Role of AI in Authorship
AI is changing how we do research and create content. Its impact on authorship and credit is making us think deeply about ethics14.
The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has spoken out on this topic. They say AI can’t be seen as an author because it can’t take full responsibility for the work14.
COPE’s Position on AI Authorship
COPE believes in strong ethics in publishing. They think authorship should go to those who truly contributed to the work and can be blamed for it14.
They also stress the need for honesty if AI helps create content. It’s important to show how much AI was involved, so readers can judge the work fairly14.
As AI becomes more common in research and creativity, we’ll keep talking about authorship and credits. COPE’s rules help us deal with these tricky issues and keep research honest14.
Rethinking Responsibility as a Criterion
With more research being done together, we need to rethink how we see responsibility in authorship15. It’s hard to expect everyone to take full responsibility in today’s complex projects15. This shows we need new ways to decide who gets credit and keep research honest.
Old ways of authorship focus a lot on individual work and wanting to be the first author15. But this can be unfair, especially to new researchers or those in supporting roles15. Using clear contributorship models can help make sure everyone gets their due credit, including women in science15.
Research projects have different roles, with some tasks done by new researchers and others by more experienced ones15. Just focusing on who takes responsibility can miss the big contributions of these key people. This could lead to unfairness and harm the integrity of research15.
| Authorship Criteria | Traditional Approach | Proposed Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Responsibility | Mandatory for all authors | Flexible, with alternative means of recognizing contributions |
| Contribution Types | Prioritizes writing and editing | Acknowledges diverse contributions, including technical roles |
| Credit Distribution | Focused on first-author publications | Promotes equitable recognition of all contributors |
In conclusion, we need to think differently about who gets credit in collaborative research. By using more flexible and inclusive ways to decide authorship, we can create a better research world. This world values all kinds of contributions, keeps research honest, and gives everyone fair credit16.
Options for Authorship in Collaborative Research
The way we do research is changing, especially with more teamwork. Researchers are looking at new ways to share credit fairly and handle the complex nature of today’s research17.
Abandoning Accountability as a Criterion
One idea is to drop the need for accountability in authorship. Instead, focus on the big ideas people bring to the table. This change helps with the modern research style, where many people work together and no one can do it all17.
Establishing “Authorship-Lite” Categories
Another way is to keep accountability for full authorship but add a “lite” category for big contributors. This lets us honor everyone’s role in a project in a better way17.
More collaborative research means more people on each study, which brings up big ethical questions18. Some papers have hundreds of authors, while others have just a few18.
| Authorship Model | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Abandoning Accountability | – Recognizes the challenges of working together – Values big ideas over who did what |
– Could lessen the value of being fully responsible |
| Authorship-Lite Categories | – Keeps full authorship with accountability – Honors big contributors |
– Makes it harder to figure out who did what |
As research changes, we need to talk more and find new ways to give credit fairly in collaborative research1718.
“The rise of empirical ethics and experimental methods has led to similar challenges in ethics research, with a greater number of contributors and specialized roles potentially hindering the ability of individuals to take full responsibility for a paper.”17
By using authorship-lite categories and changing how we see accountability in authorship, we can make research more fair and open to everyone’s ideas1718.
Promoting Research Integrity and Authorship Ethics
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Intramural Research Program (IRP) works hard to build a culture of integrity in research and ethical authorship. They offer guidelines and resources to help researchers meet the highest standards. The NIH Manuscript Clearance process is a must for NIH authors before19. It ensures they follow ethical and professional rules.
NIH IRP Guidelines and Resources
The NIH IRP has a process to solve authorship disputes. They also have Sample Lab Compacts with rules on authorship for new team members19. The CRediT Authorship “Contributor Roles Taxonomy” helps solve conflicts by listing different contributions that deserve authorship19.
The NIH and its researchers follow the ICMJE Recommendations for medical journals19. The COPE Authorship & Contributorship Guidelines help with disputes, especially for new researchers19. Many schools like the University of Pittsburgh and Michigan State University have their own authorship rules19. The HHS ORI also suggests “Preempting Discord: Prenuptial Agreements for Scientists” to prevent authorship issues19.
FAQ
What are the key ethical considerations and best practices for navigating authorship contributions and credit in 2024?
What are the APA guidelines for determining authorship credit?
Why is it important to negotiate authorship early in a collaborative research project?
What are the common reasons for authorship changes in collaborative research projects?
What steps should researchers take to resolve authorship disagreements?
What is the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position on the role of AI in authorship?
What are the potential options for addressing the challenges of authorship in collaborative research?
What resources and guidelines are available from the NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) to promote research integrity and ethical authorship practices?
Source Links
- https://academy.pubs.asha.org/asha-journals-author-resource-center/manuscript-preparation/authorship-and-publication-ethics/
- https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
- https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/resources/publishing-tips/giving-credit
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3939958/
- https://brieflands.com/journals/journal-of-critical-care-excellence/knowledgebase/icmje-authorship
- https://journals.humankinetics.com/view/journals/jtpe/42/4/article-p767.xml
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10640724/
- https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/authorship-guidelines-resources/nih-irp-authorship-conflict-resolution-process
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10393470/
- https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2024/01/10/guest-post-study-questions-whether-research-institutions-are-the-appropriate-entity-to-investigate-authorship-disputes-in-all-cases/
- https://www.dovepress.com/editorial-policies/authorship
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2544445/
- https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission/authorship-contributorship
- https://designsensory.com/insights/ai-ownership/
- https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/fully-credited-making-publishing-more-equitable
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3
- https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2024/05/15/jme-2024-109912
- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7736357/
- https://oir.nih.gov/sourcebook/ethical-conduct/authorship-guidelines-resources/authorship-resources