ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020
Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Pooled it
- Disclosing artificial intelligence use in scientific research and publication: When should disclosure be mandatory, optional, or unnecessary?Accountability in research · 2026Article
- Attribution of credit in acknowledgements: The case of systematic reviews in medicine.PloS one · 2026Article
- Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.Science and engineering ethics · 2025Article
- Characteristics of retracted biomedical research papers from Latin American institutions.Revista de saude publica · 2025Article
- Authorship agreements benefit researchers and research culture.Nature human behaviour · 2023Article
- Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Should authorship on scientific publications be treated as a right?Journal of medical ethics · 2023Article
- Article
- Authorship Disputes in Scholarly Biomedical Publications and Trust in the Research Institution.Rambam Maimonides medical journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Credit and Recognition for Contributions to Data-Sharing Platforms Among Cohort Holders and Platform Developers in Europe: Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Engaging the open science framework in quantifying and tracing scientists' research credits.Frontiers in integrative neuroscience · 2022Article
- Questionable Research Practices and Misconduct Among Norwegian Researchers.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- The gendered nature of authorship.Science advances · 2021Article
- Article
- How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone's Research Contributions Make It into the Paper.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Task specialization across research careers.eLife · 2020Article
- Authorship Not Taught and Not Caught in Undergraduate Research Experiences at a Research University.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Scientific authorship serves to identify and acknowledge individuals who "contribute significantly" to published research. However, specific authorship norms and practices often differ within and across disciplines, labs, and cultures. As a consequence, authorship disagreements are commonplace in team research. This study aims to better understand the prevalence of authorship disagreements, those factors that may lead to disagreements, as well as the extent and nature of resulting misbehavior. Methods include an international online survey of researchers who had published from 2011 to 2015 (8364 respondents). Of the 6673 who completed the main questions pertaining to authorship disagreement and misbehavior, nearly half (46.6%) reported disagreements regarding authorship naming; and discipline, rank, and gender had significant effects on disagreement rates. Paradoxically, researchers in multidisciplinary teams that typically reflect a range of norms and values, were less likely to have faced disagreements regarding authorship. Respondents reported having witnessed a wide range of misbehavior including: instances of hostility (24.6%), undermining of a colleague's work during meetings/talks (16.4%), cutting corners on research (8.3%), sabotaging a colleague's research (6.4%), or producing fraudulent work to be more competitive (3.3%). These findings suggest that authorship disputes may contribute to an unhealthy competitive dynamic that can undermine researchers' wellbeing, team cohesion, and scientific integrity.
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.