Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.     

Assessing commercial feasibility: a practical and ethical prerequisite for human clinical testing

This article proposes that an assessment of commercial feasibility should be integrated as a prerequisite for human clinical testing to improve the quality and relevance of materials being investigated, as an ethical aspect for human subject protection, and as a means of improving accountability where clinical development is funded on promises of successful translational research. A commercial feasibility analysis is not currently required to justify human clinical testing, but is assumed to have been conducted by industry participants, and use of public funds for clinical trials should be defensible in the same manner. Plant-made vaccines (PMVs) are offered in this discussion as a model for evaluating the relevance of commercial feasibility before human clinical testing. PMVs have been proposed as a potential solution for global health, based on a vision of immunizing the world against many infectious diseases. Such a vision depends on translating current knowledge in plant science and immunology into a potent vaccine that can be readily manufactured and distributed to those in need. But new biologics such as PMVs may fail to be manufactured due to financial or logistical reasons--particularly for orphan diseases without sufficient revenue incentive for industry investment--regardless of the effectiveness which might be demonstrated in human clinical testing. Moreover, all potential instruments of global health depend on translational agents well beyond the lab in order to reach those in need. A model compromising five criteria for commercial feasibility is suggested for inclusion by regulators and ethics review boards as part of the review process prior to approval of human clinical testing. Use of this model may help to facilitate safe and appropriate translational research and bring more immediate benefits to those in need.     

Letters to the editor

This article proposes that an assessment of commercial feasibility should be integrated as a prerequisite for human clinical testing to improve the quality and relevance of materials being investigated, as an ethical aspect for human subject protection, and as a means of improving accountability where clinical development is funded on promises of successful translational research. A commercial feasibility analysis is not currently required to justify human clinical testing, but is assumed to have been conducted by industry participants, and use of public funds for clinical trials should be defensible in the same manner. Plant-made vaccines (PMVs) are offered in this discussion as a model for evaluating the relevance of commercial feasibility before human clinical testing. PMVs have been proposed as a potential solution for global health, based on a vision of immunizing the world against many infectious diseases. Such a vision depends on translating current knowledge in plant science and immunology into a potent vaccine that can be readily manufactured and distributed to those in need. But new biologics such as PMVs may fail to be manufactured due to financial or logistical reasons—particularly for orphan diseases without sufficient revenue incentive for industry investment—regardless of the effectiveness which might be demonstrated in human clinical testing. Moreover, all potential instruments of global health depend on translational agents well beyond the lab in order to reach those in need. A model comprising five criteria for commercial feasibility is suggested for inclusion by regulators and ethics review boards as part of the review process prior to approval of human clinical testing. Use of this model may help to facilitate safe and appropriate translational research and bring more immediate benefits to those in need.     

Letter to the Editor: Respecting the Plurality of Value and the Messiness of Scientific Practice

Evaluations of authorship and recommendations for authorship policies best heed the plurality of valuation cultures that traverse scientific practices and respect the messiness of scientific practices, for those are reflected in authorship and authorship sequence decisions.     

Responsible authorship: why researchers must forgo honorary authorship

Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship-the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria-has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about honorary authorship. Despite its general acceptance among many scientists, honorary authorship is unethical. Even if burdensome, responsible researchers are obligated to forgo honorary authorship.     

Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship

Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship—the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria—has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about honorary authorship. Despite its general acceptance among many scientists, honorary authorship is unethical. Even if burdensome, responsible researchers are obligated to forgo honorary authorship.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Feeling the unseen: imagined touch perceptions in paranormal reality television

ABSTRACT

In paranormal reality television, the medial evidence of senses adding to the visual and auditory may produce the most compelling intermedial experience. When little can be seen or heard, the lasting impact of a ghost hunting show may rely on what it makes the audience feel through the sense of touch. Even if the touch perceptions were imagined – or precisely because they were imagined – the experience can be all the more powerful. Intermediality research supplies the rhetorical devices of ekphrasis and hypotyposis as tools for a study of the television show Ghost Adventures. A definition of senses as media is advanced in conjunction with a three-tier model of mediality to lay open the intermedial experience involved in imagined touch perceptions as medium-specific instances of rhetorical figuration.     

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.     

Letter to the editor: On plurality and authorship in science

Moffatt argues that the “plurality of distinct accounts of scientific authorship” necessitates caution in attempts to identify unethical authorship practices, and urges that considerations be given to establishing a “single consensus account of authorship.” The revised International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria do capture the essential features of authorship in terms of “intellectual contribution” and “responsibility and accountability,” which would clearly demarcate academically legitimate authorship from the common misdemeanors of ghost writing and honorary authorship. However, plurality in the practice of science and credit-sharing culture at the ground would likely render universal adoption or compliance of a single consensus account of authorship untenable.     

The complex nature of juvenile court judges’ transfer decisions: A study of judicial attitudes

A fundamental premise behind the judicial transfer (used in 46 of 50 states) decision is that serious and repeat juvenile offenders have little or no chance of rehabilitation in the Juvenile Justice System. Those juveniles who are considered “untreatable” are believed to be best dealt with by criminal justice sentencing practices that emphasize retribution and deterrence. A survey was administered to juvenile court judges (1,040) across the United States to explore the possible role of attitudes on judicial transfer decisions. The findings indicate that judges’ attitudes as well as other factors such as type and severity of abuse, the type of weapon used in an offense, the number of participants involved, and the use of a drug affect their transfer decisions. Importantly, the results also suggest that in addition to legal factors judicial transfer decisions may be affected by a complex array of socio-cultural and psychological factors.     

Fit for Work? The Influence of Sick Pay and Job Flexibility on Sickness Absence and Implications for Presenteeism

Recent developments in UK policy on health and employment have sought to change perceptions about what constitutes ‘fitness for work’. With the aim of reducing the incidence and duration of sickness absence, a range of initiatives, including the introduction of the ‘fit note’, are challenging the belief that it is necessary to be 100 per cent well in order to be at work. However, this article suggests that contextual factors independent of health may also influence people's decisions about whether or not to attend work at times of reduced wellness. Drawing upon data from a qualitative study of mental health and employment, this article illustrates how the terms and conditions of a person's employment may influence sickness absence decisions in a number of ways. It is argued that sick pay provisions, size of employer and nature of work may influence both decisions to take time off and decisions about when to return to work. The degree of flexibility to manage one's workload around times of poorer health may also have a bearing on whether people feel able to carry on with their work without recourse to sickness absence. Therefore, it may be important for policy interventions to consider not only health circumstances but also structural/contextual influences on conceptualizations of being ‘fit for work’. The implications of such contextually‐influenced decision‐making for ‘presenteeism’ are also considered. It is suggested that current conceptualizations of presenteeism are somewhat ambiguous; employees coming to work despite ill health is simultaneously presented as a problem and an aspiration.     

A comparison of models for strategic planning,risk analysis and risk management

Summary Risks, uncertainties in firms and their environment are increasingly dealt with strategic planning, risk analysis and risk management. The present state of strategic planning enables us to consider the greatest part of internal and environmental risks mainly qualitatively - due to the fact that the majority of planning models used are of a deterministic type.The application of CAPM in strategic planning could take risks into account explicitly and maximize the expected value of the firms' common stock. Linked to a corporate simulation model or a DSS it could generate a series of values for the expected rate of return, its standard deviations as well as other output variables important for the management. The difficulties of the use of CAPM are numerous but an attempt to optimize the value of the firm would be a big step in developing new powerful instruments for evaluating the economic consequences of alternative strategies. The problems of CAPM lead to the considerations of the application of stochastic programming in strategic planning. For special cases solution methods can be developed and applied. The implementation of the Decision Support System in strategic planning could help to find the best decision in an interactive way - as suggested in this paper for the case of strategic marketing planning. DSS renders the consideration of other factors relevant to strategic decisions possible; businesses need not be reduced to portfolio terms. The limitations of CAPM, stochastic programming and the difficulties of the implementations of DSS for strategic planning could be partially avoided through the concept of Risk Management. On this concept strategic planning represents only one instrument of Risk Management and is a powerful tool of risk identification. In this paper the other instruments have been shortly demonstrated for the cases of product reliability and risks in relation with foreign countries. The development of new instruments for special cases (e.g., siting problems, specific strategic decisions, etc.), the considerations of risk behavior in individual, group and inter-organizational or even international decision making are now the main topics in the urgent task of research in risk management.