ArticleScience and engineering ethics2015
Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Clarifying middle authorship contributions to reduce abuses in science publishing and assessment of top-ranked SJR biochemistry and pharmacology journals' authorship criteria.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2024Article
- Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules.Science and engineering ethics · 2024Article
- Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- Promoting equity, inclusion, and efficiency: A team science approach to the development of authorship guidelines for a multi-disciplinary research team.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2023Article
- Article
- Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2021Article
- How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone's Research Contributions Make It into the Paper.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Authorship grids: Practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publication.Research in nursing & health · 2018Article
- The Virus of Vagueness in Authorship.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices-in particular, the impact on the evaluation of one's work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25348894What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.