Reversing the byline hierarchy : The effect of equalizing bias on the accreditation of primary, secondary and senior authors

Equalizing bias (EqB) is a systematic inaccuracy which arises when authorship credit is divided equally among coauthors who have not contributed equally. As the number of coauthors increases, the diminishing amount of credit allocated to each additional coauthor is increasingly composed of equalizing bias such that when the total number of coauthors exceeds 12, the credit score of most coauthors is composed mostly of EqB. In general, EqB reverses the byline hierarchy and skews bibliometric assessments by underestimating the contribution of primary authors, i.e. those adversely affected by negative EqB, and overestimating the contribution of secondary authors, those benefitting from positive EqB. The positive and negative effects of EqB are balanced and sum to zero, but are not symmetrical. The lack of symmetry exacerbates the relative effects of EqB, and explains why primary authors are increasingly outnumbered by secondary authors as the number of coauthors increases. Specifically, for a paper with 50 coauthors, the benefit of positive EqB goes to 39 secondary authors while the burden of negative EqB befalls 11 primary authors. Relative to harmonic estimates of their actual contribution, the EqB of the 50 coauthors ranged from 350%. Senior authorship, when it occurs, is conventionally indicated by a corresponding last author and recognized as being on a par with a first author. If senior authorship is not recognized, then the credit lost by an unrecognized senior author is distributed among the other coauthors as part of their EqB. The powerful distortional effect of EqB is compounded in bibliometric indices and performance rankings derived from biased equal credit. Equalizing bias must therefore be corrected at the source by ensuring accurate accreditation of all coauthors prior to the calculation of aggregate publication metrics.Paid Open Acces

A theoretical foundation for the ethical distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary publications

In academia, authorship on publications confers merit as well as responsibility. The respective disciplines adhere to their “typical” authorship practices: individuals may be named in alphabetical order (e.g., in economics, mathematics), ranked in decreasing level of contribution (e.g., biomedical sciences), or the leadership role may be listed last (e.g., laboratory sciences). However, there is no specific, generally accepted guidance regarding authorship distribution in multidisciplinary teams, something that can lead to significant tensions and even conflict. Using Scanlon’s contractualism as a basis, I propose a conceptual foundation for the ethical distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary teams; it features four relevant principles: desert, just recognition, transparency, and collegiality. These principles can serve in the development of a practical framework to support ethical and nonarbitrary authorship distribution, which hopefully would help reduce confusion and conflict, promote agreement, and contribute to synergy in multidisciplinary collaborative research

Best Practices for Allocating Appropriate Credit and Responsibility to Authors of Multi-Authored Articles

Working in multidisciplinary teams has become a common feature of modern research processes. This situation inevitably leads to the question of how to decide on who to acknowledge as authors of a multi-authored publication. The question is gaining pertinence, since individual scientists’ publication records are playing an increasingly important role in their professional success. At worst, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to a serious conflict among coworkers that could even endanger the successful completion of a whole research project. Surprisingly, there does not seem to be any discussion on the issue of ethical standards for authorship is the field of Cognitive Science at the moment. In this short review I address the problem by characterizing modern challenges to a fair system for allocating authorship. I also offer a list of best practice principles and recommendations for determining authors in multi-authored publications on the basis of a review of existing standards

ICIRAS: Research and reconciliation with indigenous peoples in rural health journals.

AIM: We aim to promote discussion about an Indigenous Cultural Identity of Research Authors Standard (ICIRAS) for academic journal publications. CONTEXT: This is based on a gap in research publishing practice where Indigenous peoples' identity is not systematically and rigorously flagged in rural health research publications. There are widespread reforms, in different research areas, to counter the reputation of scientific research as a vehicle of racism and discrimination against the world's Indigenous peoples. Reflecting on these broader movements, the editorial teams of three rural health journals-the Australian Journal of Rural Health, the Canadian Journal of Rural Medicine, and Rural and Remote Health-recognised that Indigenous peoples' identity could be embedded in authorship details. APPROACH: An environmental scan (through a cultural safety lens where Indigenous cultural authority is respected, valued, and empowered) of literature was undertaken to detect the signs of inclusion of Indigenous peoples in research. This revealed many ways in which editorial boards of Journals could systematically improve their process so that there is 'nothing about Indigenous people, without Indigenous people' in rural health research publications. CONCLUSION: Improving the health and wellbeing of Indigenous peoples worldwide requires high quality research evidence. The philosophy of cultural safety supports the purposeful positioning of Indigenous peoples within the kaleidoscope of cultural knowledges as identified contributors and authors of research evidence. The ICIRAS is a call-to-action for research journals and institutions to rigorously improve publication governance that signals "Editing with IndigenUs and for IndigenUs"

How Does My Work Become Our Work? Dilution of Authorship in Scientific Papers, and the Need for the Academy to Obey Copyright Law

Professors enjoy a world of extensive institutional autonomy and individual academic freedom. Universities and courts defer to a professor’s judgment for “genuinely academic decisions” unless they depart from academic norms. Universities, courts, and professional societies should intervene, however, when academic norms and custom do not comport with the law

La distribution ‘juste’ de la signature savante dans les collaborations de recherche multidisciplinaire en sciences de la santé

L’auteur qui appose son nom à une publication universitaire sera reconnu pour sa contribution à la recherche et devra également en assumer la responsabilité. Il existe divers types d’agencements pouvant être utilisés afin de nommer les auteurs et souligner l’ampleur de leur contribution à ladite recherche. Par exemple, les auteurs peuvent être nommés en ordre décroissant selon l’importance de leurs contributions, ce qui permet d’allouer davantage de mérite et de responsabilité aux premiers auteurs (à l’instar des sciences de la santé) ou bien les individus peuvent être nommés en ordre alphabétique, donnant une reconnaissance égale à tous (tel qu’on le note dans certains domaines des sciences sociales). On observe aussi des pratiques émergeant de certaines disciplines ou des champs de recherche (tel que la notion d’auteur correspondant, ou directeur de recherche nommé à la fin de la liste d’auteurs). En science de la santé, lorsque la recherche est de nature multidisciplinaire, il existe différentes normes et pratiques concernant la distribution et l’ordre de la signature savante, ce qui peut donner lieu à des désaccords, voire à des conflits au sein des équipes de recherche. Même si les chercheurs s’entendent pour dire que la signature savante devrait être distribué de façon ‘juste’, il n’y a pas de consensus sur ce que l’on qualifie de ‘juste’ dans le contexte des équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire. Dans cette thèse, nous proposons un cadre éthique pour la distribution juste de la signature savante dans les équipes multidisciplinaires en sciences de la santé. Nous présentons une critique de la documentation sur la distribution de la signature savante en recherche. Nous analysons les enjeux qui peuvent entraver ou compliquer une distribution juste de la signature savante tels que les déséquilibres de pouvoir, les conflits d’intérêts et la diversité de cultures disciplinaires. Nous constatons que les normes internationales sont trop vagues; par conséquent, elles n’aident pas les chercheurs à gérer la complexité des enjeux concernant la distribution de la signature savante. Cette limitation devient particulièrement importante en santé mondiale lorsque les chercheurs provenant de pays développés collaborent avec des chercheurs provenant de pays en voie de développement. Afin de créer un cadre conceptuel flexible en mesure de s’adapter à la diversité des types de recherche multidisciplinaire, nous proposons une approche influencée par le Contractualisme de T.M. Scanlon. Cette approche utilise le respect mutuel et la force normative de la raison comme fondation, afin de justifier l’application de principes éthiques. Nous avons ainsi développé quatre principes pour la distribution juste de la signature savante en recherche: le mérite, la juste reconnaissance, la transparence et la collégialité. Enfin, nous proposons un processus qui intègre une taxonomie basée sur la contribution, afin de délimiter les rôles de chacun dans le projet de recherche. Les contributions peuvent alors être mieux comparées et évaluées pour déterminer l’ordre de la signature savante dans les équipes de recherche multidisciplinaire en science de la santé.Authorship of scientific publications is a means of recognizing both a researcher’s contribution to a paper as well as their responsibility for the integrity of their work. Various approaches to author order may be used to rank individuals and convey the extent of their contribution. For example, authors may be listed by decreasing level of contribution, whereby most credit and responsibility are allocated to the first authors (common in the health sciences), or they may be named in alphabetical order, giving equal recognition to all (common in the social sciences). There are also “rules of thumb” or preferred practices that exist in the respective disciplines or research fields (e.g., corresponding author first, Principal Investigator last). In the case of multidisciplinary health research, differing norms and practices regarding authorship distribution may be held by the respective team members; and, this can give rise to disagreement and even conflict within research teams. Although researchers and scholarly organizations agree that authorship should be distributed “fairly”, a shared understanding or consensus as to what constitutes fairness, as well as its practical implementation in multidisciplinary research collaborations, remains a significant challenge. This thesis proposes a conceptual ethical framework for the fair distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary health sciences research. At the outset, the various methods recommended by journals, learned societies, as well as in the academic literature to distribute authorship are critically reviewed; issues that may impede or complicate fair authorship distribution in multidisciplinary research are highlighted; these include, for example, power differentials, conflicts of interests, and conflicting disciplinary norms and cultures. The analysis will show that current universal normative authorship guidelines are overly broad, and therefore, are insufficient to effectively resolve many of the diverse issues that are often specific to differing contexts of research. As will be discussed, the limitations of such guidelines are particularly significant in the case of global health collaborations that involve researchers from low and middle income countries and those from high income countries. A theoretical approach influenced by T.M. Scanlon’s Contractualism is proposed as a means of achieving the flexibility needed for the diversity of multidisciplinary research contexts; mutual agreement and reasonability are used to determine whether ethical principles are “fair”. Four central and interconnected principles – desert, just recognition, transparency and collegiality – are presented as the conceptual foundation to support the development of a process for the fair distribution of authorship. This authorship distribution process integrates the detailed research tasks commonly used in “contributorship” taxonomies to delineate individual duties and roles in the research project and subsequent publication. Contributions are then compared and valued more efficiently to determine authorship order while promoting fairness in multidisciplinary health sciences research

Making visible the invisible through the analysis of acknowledgements in the humanities

Purpose: Science is subject to a normative structure that includes how the contributions and interactions between scientists are rewarded. Authorship and citations have been the key elements within the reward system of science, whereas acknowledgements, despite being a well-established element in scholarly communication, have not received the same attention. This paper aims to put forward the bearing of acknowledgements in the humanities to bring to the foreground contributions and interactions that, otherwise, would remain invisible through traditional indicators of research performance. Design/methodology/approach: The study provides a comprehensive framework to understanding acknowledgements as part of the reward system with a special focus on its value in the humanities as a reflection of intellectual indebtedness. The distinctive features of research in the humanities are outlined and the role of acknowledgements as a source of contributorship information is reviewed to support these assumptions. Findings: Peer interactive communication is the prevailing support thanked in the acknowledgements of humanities, so the notion of acknowledgements as super-citations can make special sense in this area. Since single-authored papers still predominate as publishing pattern in this domain, the study of acknowledgements might help to understand social interactions and intellectual influences that lie behind a piece of research and are not visible through authorship. Originality/value: Previous works have proposed and explored the prevailing acknowledgement types by domain. This paper focuses on the humanities to show the role of acknowledgements within the reward system and highlight publication patterns and inherent research features which make acknowledgements particularly interesting in the area as reflection of the socio-cognitive structure of research.Comment: 14 page

Frequency of reporting on patient and public involvement (PPI) in research studies published in a general medical journal : a descriptive study

Objectives While documented plans for patient and public involvement (PPI) in research are required in many grant applications, little is known about how frequently PPI occurs in practice. Low levels of reported PPI may mask actual activity due to limited PPI reporting requirements. This research analysed the frequency and types of reported PPI in the presence and absence of a journal requirement to include this information. Design and setting A before and after comparison of PPI reported in research papers published in The BMJ before and 1 year after the introduction of a journal policy requiring authors to report if and how they involved patients and the public within their papers. Results Between 1 June 2013 and 31 May 2014, The BMJ published 189 research papers and 1 (0.5%) reported PPI activity. From 1 June 2015 to 31 May 2016, following the introduction of the policy, The BMJ published 152 research papers of which 16 (11%) reported PPI activity. Patients contributed to grant applications in addition to designing studies through to coauthorship and participation in study dissemination. Patient contributors were often not fully acknowledged; 6 of 17 (35%) papers acknowledged their contributions and 2 (12%) included them as coauthors. Conclusions Infrequent reporting of PPI activity does not appear to be purely due to a failure of documentation. Reporting of PPI activity increased after the introduction of The BMJ ’s policy, but activity both before and after was low and reporting was inconsistent in quality. Journals, funders and research institutions should collaborate to move us from the current situation where PPI is an optional extra to one where PPI is fully embedded in practice throughout the research process

How Media Ownership Affects Community Journalism: A Case Study Of The Grand Forks Herald

Local print newspapers have experienced many fiscal challenges over the past decade resulting in the downsizing of personnel and the consolidation of other resources. This restructuring ultimately affects its readers who may not receive the level of local information they need to further the ideals of civic engagement and democracy within their community. This study examines the relationship between media ownership and the amount of local news found within one newspaper serving a mid-size Midwestern city. This research was conducted through comparisons of the number of articles, column inches, and local reporter data in the newspaper’s two primary news sections over a ten-year period. The results show how the number of local news articles has decreased overall due to a considerable drop in the number of pages per edition, yet the percentage of local news has risen as fewer national and international stories appeared by the close of the decade

PRESSING CHARGES: The Impact of the Sam Sheppard Trials on Courtroom Coverage and Criminal Law

Tali Yahalom, College \u2709, History Roman Holidays: The Role of Publicity in Criminal Trials The media sensationalized the 1954 trial of Sam Sheppard (accused of murdering his wife), his acquittal, and post-prison years. The intense coverage set journalistic and legal precedents, motivating various judges to address, in legal terms, the media’s role during pretrial investigations and courtroom proceedings. This thesis uses newspapers, magazines and court opinions to explore the extent of the media blitz, and addresses the question of whether the press compromised justice. This thesis also examines the case\u27s continuing relevance: Why was this particular case so popular? Why did the public react with a collective desire to convict Sheppard? As an indelible presence in American public memory, how did the case change the legality and culture of trial coverage in the US? The recurring presence of the trial in publicity-related cases today highlights the irreconcilable tension between a public\u27s right to a free press and a defendant\u27s right to a fair and speedy trial