Dataset Information

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.

ABSTRACT: Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.

SUBMITTER: Smith E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6891155 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.

Smith Elise E Williams-Jones Bryn B Master Zubin Z Larivière Vincent V Sugimoto Cassidy R CR Paul-Hus Adèle A Shi Min M Diller Elena E Caudle Katie K Resnik David B DB

Science and engineering ethics 20190604 4

Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding ...[more]

PMID: 31165383

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the relationship between biomedical researchers' collaborative and authorship practices and scientific success.DesignLongitudinal quantitative analysis of individual researchers' careers over a nine-year period.SettingA leading biomedical research institution in the United Kingdom.ParticipantsFive hundred and twenty-five biomedical researchers who were in employment on 31 December 2009.Main outcome measuresWe constructed the co-authorship network in which nodes are the researchers, and links are established between any two researchers if they co-authored one or more articles. For each researcher, we recorded the position held in the co-authorship network and in the bylines of all articles published in each three-year interval and calculated the number of citations these articles accrued until January 2013. We estimated maximum likelihood negative binomial panel regression models.ResultsOur analysis suggests that collaboration sustained success, yet excessive co-authorship did not. Last positions in non-alphabetised bylines were beneficial for higher academic ranks but not for junior ones. A professor could witness a 20.57% increase in the expected citation count if last-listed non-alphabetically in one additional publication; yet, a lecturer suffered from a 13.04% reduction. First positions in alphabetised bylines were positively associated with performance for junior academics only. A lecturer could experience a 8.78% increase in the expected citation count if first-listed alphabetically in one additional publication. While junior researchers amplified success when brokering among otherwise disconnected collaborators, senior researchers prospered from socially cohesive networks, rich in third-party relationships.ConclusionsThese results help biomedical scientists shape successful careers and research institutions develop effective assessment and recruitment policies that will ultimately sustain the quality of biomedical research and patient care.

Project description:Background:There is increasing evidence that research misbehaviour is common, especially the minor forms. Previous studies on research misbehaviour primarily focused on biomedical and social sciences, and evidence from natural sciences and humanities is scarce. We investigated what academic researchers in Amsterdam perceived to be detrimental research misbehaviours in their respective disciplinary fields. Methods:We used an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. First, survey participants from four disciplinary fields rated perceived frequency and impact of research misbehaviours from a list of 60. We then combined these into a top five ranking of most detrimental research misbehaviours at the aggregate level, stratified by disciplinary field. Second, in focus group interviews, participants from each academic rank and disciplinary field were asked to reflect on the most relevant research misbehaviours for their disciplinary field. We used participative ranking methodology inducing participants to obtain consensus on which research misbehaviours are most detrimental. Results:In total, 1080 researchers completed the survey (response rate: 15%) and 61 participated in the focus groups (3 three to 8 eight researchers per group). Insufficient supervision consistently ranked highest in the survey regardless of disciplinary field and the focus groups confirmed this. Important themes in the focus groups were insufficient supervision, sloppy science, and sloppy peer review. Biomedical researchers and social science researchers were primarily concerned with sloppy science and insufficient supervision. Natural sciences and humanities researchers discussed sloppy reviewing and theft of ideas by reviewers, a form of plagiarism. Focus group participants further provided examples of particular research misbehaviours they were confronted with and how these impacted their work as a researcher. Conclusion:We found insufficient supervision and various forms of sloppy science to score highly on aggregate detrimental impact throughout all disciplinary fields. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities also perceived nepotism to be of major impact on the aggregate level. The natural sciences regarded fabrication of data of major impact as well. The focus group interviews helped to understand how researchers interpreted 'insufficient supervision'. Besides, the focus group participants added insight into sloppy science in practice. Researchers from the natural sciences and humanities added new research misbehaviours concerning their disciplinary fields to the list, such as the stealing of ideas before publication. This improves our understanding of research misbehaviour beyond the social and biomedical fields.

Project description:Background: Genomic and biobanking research has increased in Africa over the past few years. This has raised pertinent ethical, legal, and societal concerns for stakeholders such as sample or data ownership, commercialization, and benefit sharing. There is limited awareness of the concept of benefit sharing by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members on benefit sharing in international collaborative genomic and biobanking research. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers and 19 research ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Results: Six themes emerged from the data and these included perceptions on the benefits of genomic and biobanking research; discussion of benefit sharing with participants during the informed consent process; legal implications of benefit sharing and the role of material transfer agreements; equity and fairness in sharing the benefits of genomic research; perceived barriers to fair benefit sharing; and recommendations for fostering fair and equitable benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research. Most respondents clearly understood the various forms of benefits of genomic and biobanking research and opined that such benefits should be fairly and equitably shared with low and middle-income country researchers and their institutions, and research communities. The perceived barriers to the fair benefit sharing unfavorable include power disparities, weak research regulatory frameworks, and lack of scientific integrity. Conclusion: Overall, respondents believed that the distribution of the advantages of genomic and biobanking research in North-South collaborative research was not equitable nor fair, and that the playing field was not leveled. Therefore, we advocate the following for fair and equitable benefit sharing: Building the capacities and empowering research scientists in developing nations; strengthening regulatory frameworks and extending the purview of the research ethics committee in the development and implementation of material transfer agreements; and meaningfully involving local research communities in benefit sharing negotiations.

Project description:Introduction and methodAfrica is currently host to a number of international genomics research and biobanking consortia, each with a mandate to advance genomics research and biobanking in Africa. Whilst most of these consortia promise to transform the way international health research is done in Africa, few have articulated exactly how they propose to go about this. In this paper, we report on a qualitative interviewing study in which we involved 17 genomics researchers in Africa. We describe their perceptions and expectations of international genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa.ResultsAll interviewees were of the view that externally funded genomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa, have played a critical role in building capacity for genomics research and biobanking in Africa and in providing an opportunity for researchers in Africa to collaborate and network with other researchers. Whilst the opportunity to collaborate was seen as a benefit, some interviewees stressed the importance of recognizing that these collaborations carry mutual benefits for all partners, including their collaborators in HICs. They also voiced two major concerns of being part of these collaborative initiatives: the possibility of exploitation of African researchers and the non-sustainability of research capacity building efforts. As a way of minimising exploitation, researchers in Africa recommended that genuine efforts be made to create transparent and equitable international health research partnerships. They suggested that this could be achieved through,: having rules of engagement, enabling African researchers to contribute to the design and conduct of international health projects in Africa, and mutual and respectful exchange of experience and capacity between research collaborators. These were identified as hallmarks to equitable international health research collaborations in Africa.ConclusionGenomics research and biobanking initiatives in Africa such as H3Africa have gone some way in defining aspects of fair and equitable research collaborations in Africa. However, they will need to strive at achieving equitable health research collaborations if they truly aim at setting a gold standard for how international health research should be conducted in Africa.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Recruiting racial/ethnic minorities into health research is challenging. Although researchers affiliated with members of the study population (seen as insiders) may increase research participation of racial/ethnic minorities, little is known about who participants see as insiders and how they respond to insider versus outsider researchers. OBJECTIVES:The aim of the study was to examine perceptions of Hmong older adults toward insider versus outsider researchers and the influence of these perceptions on their willingness to participate in research. METHODS:Participants in a study evaluating use of a culturally and linguistically adapted audio computer-assisted self-interviewing system with helper assistance (ACASI-H) provided information about what they thought would encourage others in their community to participate in research. ACASI-H was used for collection of health data with 30 Hmong older adults. Participants rated the likelihood of participation if the researcher was Hmong and answered open-ended questions about participation when the researcher was not Hmong. Conventional content analysis was used to analyze open-ended questions. RESULTS:Sixteen (53%) participants reported that they would be "likely" to participate in the research if the researcher was Hmong. Fourteen (47%) participants reported that they would participate in research if the researcher was not Hmong. In addition to ethnic affiliation, trust in the researcher could shift the perception of the researcher toward insider status, thereby increasing willingness of Hmong adults to participate in research. Trust in the researcher and movement toward insider status could be increased by calling out a connection between the researcher and the participant or creating reciprocity. DISCUSSION:Findings suggest that increasing research participation of Hmong (and possibly other) participants, particularly when researchers do not share ethnic membership, can be achieved by building trust. This study also suggests a more nuanced perception of insider status, as a continuum, rather than a dichotomy, may be a more accurate reflection of the relationship between participants and researchers.

Dataset Information

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.

Publications

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets