ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2017
Honorary authorship and symbolic violence.
Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- A new system of authorship best assessment.Journal of public health research · 2023Article
- [Authorship and Inappropriate Authorship from an Ethical Publication Perspective].Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2022Review
- Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Publication Ethics.Indian pediatrics · 2021Article
- Knowledge and Perceptions of Honorary Authorship among Health Care Researchers: Online Cross-sectional Survey Data from the Middle East.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Bibliometric Analysis of the English Musculoskeletal Literature over the Last 30 Years.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2021Article
- Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research.Life sciences, society and policy · 2020Article
- Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2020Review
- Bibliometric and authorship trends over a 30 year publication history in two representative US sports medicine journals.Heliyon · 2020Article
- Fake Peer Review and Inappropriate Authorship Are Real Evils.Journal of Korean medical science · 2019Review
- Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research.PloS one · 2017Article
- Authorship in biomedical research: A sweet fruit of inspiration or a bitter fruit of trade.Tropical parasitologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper invokes the conceptual framework of Bourdieu to analyse the mechanisms, which help to maintain inappropriate authorship practices and the functions these practices may serve. Bourdieu's social theory with its emphasis on mechanisms of domination can be applied to the academic field, too, where competition is omnipresent, control mechanisms of authorship are loose, and the result of performance assessment can be a matter of symbolic life and death for the researchers. This results in a problem of game-theoretic nature, where researchers' behaviour will be determined more by the logic of competition, than by individual character or motives. From this follows that changing this practice requires institutionalized mechanisms, and change cannot be expected from simply appealing to researchers' individual conscience. The article aims at showing that academic capital (administrative power, seniority) is translated into honorary authorship. With little control, undetected honorary authorship gives the appearance of possessing intellectual capital (scientific merit). In this way a dominant position is made to be seen as natural result of intellectual ability or scientific merit, which makes it more acceptable to those in dominated positions. The final conclusion of this paper is that undemocratic authorship decisions and authorship based performance assessment together are a form of symbolic violence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.