Authorship

Home/Tag:Authorship

How do you agree on authorship with fellow researchers?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. You have been invited to join a multinational, multidisciplinary U21 collaborative team looking at the impact of Free Trade Agreements on the working practices of lawyers. While the project is being established, the team start to allocate responsibility for possible research outputs. Various suggestions are made about who should be authors. You hear the following comments: * In my discipline, the whole research team

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: , , |

Should students offer co-authorship to their supervisors?

Prof. Mark Israel (Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services) has kindly given permission for this hypothetical case study to be reproduced. Wing Hong is a PhD student. Following a suggestion from his supervisor, Maggy, he writes an article for publication. Maggy provides extensive comments. The article is accepted subject to revision and, again, Maggy provides comments and hands over a draft of an article she is writing. Wing Hong uses material from this article and offers Maggy co-authorship. Should she accept? Wing Hong's second supervisor,

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Nurturing Students, Principles of Research Integrity, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |

Legitimate authorship – a survey of educational researchers in Hong Kong

Professor Bruce Macfarlane conducted research into the perceptions among educational researchers in Hong Kong of the ethics of multiple authorship (namely what constitutes legitimate authorship). In October/November 2014, a link to an online questionnaire was sent by e-mail to academic staff with professorial and research track positions in Schools or Faculties of Education in Hong Kong. 108 responses were collected, representing a response rate of 36.1% of the 299 education academics employed in Schools or Faculties of Education in Hong Kong. Case studies in the

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: , |

What constitutes authorship – a COPE case study

One case study from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website (http://publicationethics.org/case/what-constitutes-authorship):   Author X submitted a paper to another journal, and included author Y, a student in the same institute, as a courtesy. Author Y had drawn two figures for the paper and discussed some of the observations (all made by author X) with author X but the paper did not deal with the thesis research of author Y. After the original paper was returned, requiring extensive revisions, author X revised the paper and

Categories: Acknowledgement, Case Studies, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: |

References on Authorship

The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has published a Discussion Document titled 'What constitutes authorship?' drawing upon a variety of sources: http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf The COPE Discussion Document recognises that authorship in the legal discipline is: still very much a product of the writing process, and usually by a single individual. Any other form of contribution such as generation of ideas, commenting on a draft, or technical assistance is listed in the Acknowledgments. Traditions in the humanities also differ from some disciplines in the social and natural

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship|Tags: |

ICMJE Recommendations: Authorship Criteria

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations list 4 criteria for authorship (http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html): 1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

Singapore Statement on Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The Singapore Statement on Research Integrity (Section 6), to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference, states the following: Researchers should take responsibility for their contributions to all publications, funding applications, reports and other representations of their research. Lists of authors should include all those and only those who meet applicable authorship criteria.  Researchers should acknowledge in publications the names and roles of those who made significant contributions to the research, including writers, funders, sponsors, and others, but do not meet authorship criteria.

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

ORI Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship Criteria

The Office of Research Integrity's Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research (to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference) states the following: The names that appear at the beginning of a paper serve one important purpose. They let others know who conducted the research and should get credit for it. It is important to know who conducted the research in case there are questions about methods, data, and the interpretation of results. Likewise, the credit derived from publications is used to determine a

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: |

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (jointly published by the European Science Foundation and ALL European Academies (ALLEA), and to which the HKU Policy on Research Integrity makes reference) states the following: Fairness, in providing proper references and giving due credits to the work of others, in treating colleagues with integrity and honesty. (emphasis added) It is unacceptable to claim or grant undeserved authorship and to deny deserved authorship, or to inadequately allocate credit. Unjustified claimed authorship and ghost authorship are forms of

Categories: Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Publication-related Conduct, Research Misconduct|Tags: , , |

HKU Policy on Research Integrity: Authorship Criteria

The HKU Policy on Research Integrity covers authorship criteria in the following sections: Section 1 ('Principle of Research Integrity'): All members of the University must observe the highest standards of professional conduct and must comply with the following principles of research integrity in pursuing their research activities: [...] fairness in giving credit and appropriate acknowledgement [...] [All researchers] must be fair in giving credit for the work of other researchers who participate in the research. [...] In pursing their research activities, members of the University

Categories: Accountability, Acknowledgement, Improper Ascription of Authorship, Policies, Principles of Research Integrity, Publication-related Conduct|Tags: , , |