ArticleScience and engineering ethics2016
Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 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
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shaping the Field: A Review of the Use of Theory in Research on Research Integrity.Science and engineering ethics · 2026Review
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
- Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- 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
- Self-interestedness in Research Collaboration and its Association with Career Stage and Nature of Collaboration: A Survey of Zimbabwean Researchers.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 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
- An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Facilitators and Barriers for Young Medical Doctors Writing Their First Manuscript for Publication.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Scientific Cooperation and the Co-production of Scientific Outcomes for Physical Activity Promotion: Results From a Transdisciplinary Research Consortium.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Is authorship sufficient for today's collaborative research? A call for contributor roles.Accountability in research · 2021Article
- The Effects of Anti-corruption Campaign on Research Grant Reimbursement: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from China.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
- Steer clear of honorary authorship.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2019Article
- Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Authorship grids: Practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publication.Research in nursing & health · 2018Article
- Inappropriate Authorship and Kinship in Research Evaluation.Journal of Korean medical science · 2018Article
- Authorship: Few Myths and Misconceptions.Science and engineering ethics · 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
Scholars and policy-makers have expressed concerns about the crediting of coauthors in research publications. Most such problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones. But our research shows that there is no consensus on "deserving" or on what type of contribution suffices for co-authorship award. Our study uses qualitative data, including interviews with 60 US academic science or engineering researchers in 14 disciplines in a set of geographically distributed research-intensive universities. We also employ data from 161 website posts provided by 93 study participants, again US academic scientists. We examine a variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co-author credit and unwarranted inclusion, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes. Determinants of outcomes include characteristics of disciplines and fields, institutional work culture, power dynamics and team-specific norms and decision processes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26573303What 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.