Influences on Authorship Issues: An Evaluation of Receiving,Not Receiving,and Rejecting Credit

A survey on credit issues was conducted of academic chemists in Ph.D. granting institutions in the United States. Six-hundred faculty members responded representing 16% of the survey recipients. Fifty percent of the respondents reported not receiving appropriate credit for contributions they had made to published projects. Neither the number of years after receiving their Ph.D., their fields of expertise, their total number of publications, nor their total number of single-author publications showed any significant relationship with the perception of not receiving appropriate credit. Twenty percent of the respondents had discovered that they were an author of a paper, after that paper had been submitted to a journal. Forty-nine percent reported that they had asked to have their name deleted as an author. Relationships between these perceptions and academic background factors were examined. For example, respondents who had asked to be removed from authorship were more likely to give authorship or an acknowledgement to others and were also more likely to have had an authorship problem with others, both of these factors being related to longevity as a publishing scientist.     

Credit and Authorship Practices: Educational and Environmental Influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own “policy” toward giving credit; doing what “seems to be the right thing” was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.     

Credit and authorship practices: educational and environmental influences

A survey on credit issues of academic chemists in U.S. Ph.D.-granting institutions was conducted. The respondents rated 15 criteria for authorship of scientific publications; core intellectual contributions received the highest ratings although making a single suggestion that was essential to the successful completion of the project was rated very low. Acquisition of data was also rated highly. The respondents rated eight potential influences on their own "policy" toward giving credit; doing what "seems to be the right thing" was the highest rated influence followed by graduate educational experiences; professional society or other responsible conduct of research (RCR) institutional policies were rated, by far, the lowest.     

Turning Doctoral Students into Faculty in Gerontological Social Work: The AGESW Experience

ABSTRACT

Developing faculty interested in aging may help social work meet the needs of our growing aging population. However, doctoral students need a variety of supports to complete PhDs and become gerontological social work faculty. This study explored one program’s role in supporting the development of social work doctoral students to faculty in gerontology. An e-mail invitation was sent to all former participants (2010–2016 cohorts) of the Association for Gerontology Education in Social Work (AGESW) Pre-Dissertation Fellows Program (PDFP). The 38-question online survey consisted of Likert-type scales, multiple answers, and one open-ended question per section about the program’s impacts on their academic career development in teaching, research, mentoring, and support. Forty-five respondents, representing all six cohorts, completed the survey. More than half reported that the PDFP contributed to their ability to publish their research (64.4%, n = 29), grow their professional network (86.7%, n = 39, and teach (55.5%, n = 25). Doctoral programs provided different experiences than the PDFP, including mentoring, methodological training, professional development, networking, and peer support. Results suggest the PDFP provides content recipients value that supplements instruction received in their institutions. The program’s ability to connect students to each other and to national leaders enhances their career development and socialization into academic roles.     

Researchers’ Views of the Acceptability of Restrictive Provisions in Clinical Trial Agreements with Industry Sponsors

We conducted a mail survey of 884 U.S. medical school faculty active in clinical research to elicit their views about the acceptability of provisions in contracts for industry-sponsored clinical trials that would restrict investigators’ academic freedom and control over trials. We compared their responses to results from a similar survey of research administrators at 107 medical schools. There was substantial variation among clinical researchers in their acceptability judgments, with a relatively large proportion of clinical trial investigators willing to accept provisions that give industry sponsors considerable control over the dissemination of research results. There were significant differences in the perceptions of clinical trial investigators versus other recently published clinical researchers; investigators with a high versus low percentage of research support from industry; junior versus senior faculty; and investigators at institutions with high versus low National Institute of Health (NIH) funding ranks. There was also a significant divergence of views in a number of areas between clinical trialists and research administrators who negotiate clinical trial contracts on their behalf. Medical school faculty could benefit from additional guidance about what their institution views as acceptable parameters for industry-sponsored clinical trial agreements.     

Researchers' views of the acceptability of restrictive provisions in clinical trial agreements with industry sponsors

We conducted a mail survey of 884 U.S. medical school faculty active in clinical research to elicit their views about the acceptability of provisions in contracts for industry-sponsored clinical trials that would restrict investigators' academic freedom and control over trials. We compared their responses to results from a similar survey of research administrators at 107 medical schools. There was substantial variation among clinical researchers in their acceptability judgments, with a relatively large proportion of clinical trial investigators willing to accept provisions that give industry sponsors considerable control over the dissemination of research results. There were significant differences in the perceptions of clinical trial investigators versus other recently published clinical researchers; investigators with a high versus low percentage of research support from industry; junior versus senior faculty; and investigators at institutions with high versus low National Institute of Health (NIH) funding ranks. There was also a significant divergence of views in a number of areas between clinical trialists and research administrators who negotiate clinical trial contracts on their behalf. Medical school faculty could benefit from additional guidance about what their institution views as acceptable parameters for industry-sponsored clinical trial agreements.     

Strengthening Higher Education Through Gridiron Success? Public Perceptions of the Impact of National Football Championships on Academic Quality*

Objectives. This article examines the extent to which the public connects athletic success with academic quality, whether these connections are stronger during a year in which a state university wins a national championship, the type of respondents most likely to make such connections, and whether these connections make a difference in terms of public evaluations and support for higher education. Embedded within the 2004 survey instrument, we also consider whether respondents primed with specific question wording identifying the national championship are more likely to make the connection than respondents given more generic language referring to success in college athletics. Methods. Data for the study are based on two statewide, randomly selected samples of Louisiana voting‐age residents, with the first survey conducted in February 2004 in the wake of LSU's BCS National Championship and the second survey conducted in January 2005 in the wake of a 9–3 season. Results. We find that a substantial proportion of the population believes that athletic success and academic quality are connected, that less‐educated respondents are more likely to make such connections, and that these connections affect evaluations of colleges and universities. Conclusions. Athletic success may or may not directly affect academic quality, but the public largely believes such a link exists and those beliefs have important implications for higher education.     

Assisting the High Administrative Court in Restricting Too Broad a Concept of Academic Judgment

I have received substantial monetary compensation and a formal apology from my first doctoral school, and a Ph.D. from another university. This essay describes my personal view on discussing the boundaries of academic judgment and research supervision with the ombudsman agency for higher education, and at the High Administrative Court of England and Wales. The Court’s judicial doctrine addresses substantial research accountability matters. It clarifies that although the Court and ombudsman agency must not interfere with academic judgment, not everything done by an academic can be considered as academic judgment. A Ph.D. supervisor can seriously fail to perform his/her duties.     

Internal and External Factors of Plagiarism: Evidence from Chinese Public Sector Universities

This study explores the effects of internal and external factors that encourage plagiarism from the perspective of students. We collected student data from five public sector universities in Anhui Province, China, by randomly distributing survey questionnaires to 250 students, 176 of which were usable. We analyzed the collected quantitative data through multiple regression analysis. Our research results demonstrate that external and internal factors have a great influence on plagiarism. The control behavior and teaching factors have a significantly positive impact on plagiarism, while ICT and web does not have a considerable impact on plagiarism. Among the external factors, a significant positive correlation exists between external stress, pride, and plagiarism; however, no significant relationship exists between academic skills and plagiarism. The article concludes that grade level and enrollment status (full-time or part-time) are inversely correlated to plagiarism, which proves that the higher the academic level, the less the plagiarism behaviors occur. This concept may be due to the fact that the higher the academic level, the stronger the plagiarism constraints might be, which in turn leads to a drastic decrease in plagiarism. Moreover, a negative relationship emerges between enrollment status (full-time or part-time) and plagiarism because part-time students who are committed to employment are less likely to give their full attention to their studies.     

More on plurality and authorship in science: A reply to Tang

Understanding the “political economy” of the research environment is at the core of getting clear on the ethical aspects of authorship. Questions about who should be an author on a scientific paper are complicated by the fact that authorship is used to determine credit inside science and by outside institutions whose interests and standards often differ dramatically. Much of the research ethics community seeks to impose an elite ethical consensus on scientific fields. I argue that this approach undermines the scientific autonomy of research communities. In contrast, we should develop bottom-up strategies that empower local communities and associations.     

Associations between attitudes towards scientific misconduct and self-reported behavior

We investigate the relationship between doctoral students’ attitudes towards scientific misconduct and their self-reported behavior. 203 questionnaires were distributed to doctoral candidates at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo 2016/2017. The response rate was 74%. The results show a correlation between attitudes towards misconduct and self-reported problematic behaviors among doctoral students in biomedicine. The four most common reported misbehaviors are adding author(s) who did not qualify for authorship (17.9%), collecting more data after seeing that the results were almost statistically significant (11.8%), turning a blind eye to colleagues’ use of flawed data or questionable interpretation of data (11.2%), and reporting an unexpected finding as having been hypothesized from the start (10.5%). We find correlations between scientific misbehavior and the location of undergraduate studies and whether the respondents have had science ethics lectures previously. The study provides evidence for the concurrent validity of the two instruments used to measure attitudes and behavior, i.e. the Kalichman scale and the Research Misbehavior Severity Score (RMSS). Although the direction of causality between attitudes and misbehavior cannot be determined in this study the correlation between the two indicates that it can be important to engender the right attitudes in early career researchers.     

Conflicts of interest in academic research: policies, processes, and attitudes

Few studies have examined academic researchers' understandings or attitudes toward conflict of interest policies even though these understandings and attitudes represent a crucial component of both compliance and educational efforts. This study reports the results of a large-scale, cross-sectional survey of research faculty at the nine campuses of the University of California regarding their understandings of and attitudes toward campus conflict of interest policies. We gathered information on their general assessments of investigators with financial ties to industry sponsors and reactions to the process of implementing conflict of interest policies at their respective campuses. We surveyed 1,971 faculty members from the nine-campus University of California system and had 779 responses (39% response rate). The sampled faculty were in the ten departments with the most number of financial disclosures at each campus. We utilized the WebSurveyor software to create a secure, online, 21-item survey. Our study reveals faculty with complex, sometimes contradictory, feelings about academic-industry relationships and highlights perceived gaps in policy and process. Most respondents were concerned about unlimited financial relationships, but a sizable number also viewed campus policies as irrelevant. Some expressed considerable anger over the process of policy implementation, rejecting the policies on the basis of professional and individual self-determination and moral integrity. Our study suggests the need for renewed efforts to encourage awareness of the relevance of conflict of interest policies for all faculty, new efforts to increase understanding of the situational nature of conflicts of interest, and reexamination of the processes of policy implementation at the campus level.     

Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research: Policies,Processes, and Attitudes

Few studies have examined academic researchers' understandings of or attitudes toward conflict of interest policies even though these understandings and attitudes represent a crucial component of both compliance and educational efforts. This study reports the results of a large-scale, cross-sectional survey of research faculty at the nine campuses of the University of California regarding their understandings of and attitudes toward campus conflict of interest policies. We gathered information on their general assessments of investigators with financial ties to industry sponsors and reactions to the process of implementing conflict of interest policies at their respective campuses. We surveyed 1,971 faculty members from the nine-campus University of California system and had 779 responses (39% response rate). The sampled faculty were in the ten departments with the most number of financial disclosures at each campus. We utilized the WebSurveyor software to create a secure, online, 21-item survey. Our study reveals faculty with complex, sometimes contradictory, feelings about academic-industry relationships and highlights perceived gaps in policy and process. Most respondents were concerned about unlimited financial relationships, but a sizable number also viewed campus policies as irrelevant. Some expressed considerable anger over the process of policy implementation, rejecting the policies on the basis of professional and individual self-determination and moral integrity. Our study suggests the need for renewed efforts to encourage awareness of the relevance of conflict of interest policies for all faculty, new efforts to increase understanding of the situational nature of conflicts of interest, and a reexamination of the processes of policy implementation at the campus level.     

A retrospective analysis of 10-year authorship trends in biomedical engineering journals

Studies have indicated that academic research has become increasingly complex and multidisciplinary. There seems to be an increasing trend of multiple author articles published across most journals. As the field of biomedical engineering also encompasses multidisciplinary-based knowledge, it is interesting to understand the authorship trend over time. In this study, six journals were carefully chosen from the Journal Citation Report of the Thomson Scientific based on predefined criteria (year 1999 to 2008). The data pertaining to authorships for the articles published in these journals were then acquired from the PubMed database. The results show that there is a general upward trend for the number of author per article, but it is not significant (p > .01) despite a 64.5% increase in the total number of article published in the six chosen journals. Thus, the expected increase is not observed in this field, and it may be due to the stringent guidelines by journals in defining the contributions of an author. Particularly, contributing factors like the impact of authorship irregularities is discussed herein.     

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

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.     

Evaluating U.S. Medical Schools' Efforts to Educate Faculty Researchers on Research Integrity and Research Misconduct Policies and Procedures

This paper examines how well U.S. medical school institutions are doing to promote research integrity. It is an important question to ask in order to determine whether there are sufficient and adequate protections in place to protect the U.S. Public Health Service's (PHS) resources devoted to medical research. This paper focuses on 5,100 medical school researchers' knowledge of what constitutes research misconduct as well as their willingness to report it to the research integrity officer (RIO) and educate their Ph.D. trainees. We learned that 5.6% of researchers could correctly distinguish seven or more of the nine scenarios that depicted likely research misconduct, as defined by the PHS regulations, from scenarios describing other ethical issues. Instead, researchers had expansive definitions and often inappropriately identified infractions such as conflicts of interest, Institutional Review Board (IRB) violations, and other breaches in ethical standards to be research misconduct. In addition, researchers who correctly identified four instances of likely research misconduct in the test items were highly unlikely to report their observations to a RIO. Researchers also provided insight on the factors they believe influence their decision making process of whether to report research misconduct. In addition, this paper also reports on the guidance that faculty said they provided their trainees on research misconduct issues. We conclude with a discussion and recommendations on what institutional leaders might consider doing in order to enhance their research integrity efforts and protect their institution's reputation.     

All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science

The passionate pursuit of authorships is fuelled by the value they represent to scholars and scientists. This article asks how this value differs across scientists and how these different processes of valuation inform authorship articulation, strategies, and publication behavior in general. Drawing from a qualitative analysis of authorship practices among nutrition scientists employed at universities, contract research organizations, and in food industry, I argue that two different modi operandi emerge when it comes to authorship. These different ways of working produce different collaborative approaches, different credit distribution strategies amongst collaborators, and different value placed upon (the pursuit of) authorship. These different valuation processes are neither explicit nor recognizable to those reading (and judging) author lists. As a consequence, in the politics of authorship, the names standing atop a scientific publication in nutrition science represent different types of value to both the individuals and employing organizations.