Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33210194›Full record

SynthesisScience and engineering ethics2020

Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.

Lisa M Rasmussen, Courtney E Williams, Mary M Hausfeld, George C Banks, Bailey C Davis

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Lisa M RasmussenDepartment of Philosophy and Graduate School Faculty Fellow, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA. lrasmuss@uncc.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9339-0770
Courtney E WilliamsDepartment of Management, University of Toledo, 2801 Bancroft St., Toledo, OH, 43606, USA.
Mary M HausfeldDepartment of Management, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA.
George C BanksDepartment of Management, Belk College of Business, University of North Carolina Charlotte, 9201 University City Blvd., Charlotte, NC, 28223, USA.
Bailey C DavisDepartment of Ethics and Compliance, Memorial Health University Medical Center, 4700 Waters Ave, Savannah, GA, 31404, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Intellectual contribution in the form of authorship is a fundamental component of the academic career. While research has addressed questionable and harmful authorship practices, there has largely been no discussion of how U.S. academic institutions interpret and potentially mitigate such practices through the use of institution-level authorship policies. To gain a better understanding of the role of U.S. academic institutions in authorship practices, we conducted a systematic review of publicly available authorship policies for U.S. doctoral institutions (using the 266 2018 Carnegie-classified R1 and R2 Universities), focusing on components such as specification of authorship criteria, recommendations for discussing authorship, dispute resolution processes, and guidance for faculty-student collaborations. We found that only 24% of the 266 Carnegie R1 and R2 Universities had publicly available authorship policies. Within these policies, the majority (93%) specified criteria for authorship, but provided less guidance about actual processes for applying such criteria (62%), handling authorship disputes (62%), and managing faculty-student author teams (49%). Further, we found that any discussion of dispute resolution practices typically lacked specificity. Recommendations grounded in these findings are offered for institutions to leverage their ability to guide the authorship process by adopting an authorship policy that acknowledges disciplinary diversity while still offering substantive guidance.

Indexed as

AuthorshipUniversitiesFacultyHumansOrganizational PolicyStudentsAuthorshipAuthorship dispute resolutionInstitutional authorship policy

Identifiers

PMID33210194
PMCPMC7755643

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.