Academic Literacies: Appraisal and social sanction about authorship and scientific integrity

Selbach, H; Motta-Roth, Désirée; Schmidt, Ana Paula Carvalho

doi:10.1590/1984-6398201812991

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As a result, there is a rising trend toward hyper-authorship (Greene, 2007;Nogrady, 2023), characterized by an increasing number of authors per article and a greater prevalence of large team collaborations (Hu et al, 2020;Larivière et al, 2015;Thelwall & Maflahi, 2022;Wagner et al, 2015;Wuchty et al, 2007). However, this trend has put pressure on the scientific credit system, making it increasingly challenging to discern the individual contributions of each author (Mattsson et al, 2011;Selbach et al, 2018). In this context, the concept of "equal contribution authors" has emerged (Hu, 2009), with one notable case being the phenomenon of co-corresponding authorship, which involves the designation of at least two corresponding authors for a given paper.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding co‐corresponding authorship: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview

Tian,

Cai,

Fang

et al. 2023

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorship is becoming more and more common. To understand the practice of authorship credit sharing among multiple corresponding authors, we comprehensively analyzed the characteristics of the phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorships from the perspectives of countries, disciplines, journals, and articles. This researcher was based on a dataset of nearly 8 million articles indexed in the Web of Science, which provides systematic, cross‐disciplinary, and large‐scale evidence for understanding the phenomenon of co‐corresponding authorship for the first time. Our findings reveal that higher proportions of co‐corresponding authorship exist in Asian countries, especially in China. From the perspective of disciplines, there is a relatively higher proportion of co‐corresponding authorship in the fields of engineering and medicine, while a lower proportion exists in the humanities, social sciences, and computer science fields. From the perspective of journals, high‐quality journals usually have higher proportions of co‐corresponding authorship. At the level of the article, our findings proved that, compared to articles with a single corresponding author, articles with multiple corresponding authors have a significant citation advantage.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding co‐corresponding authorship: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview

Tian,

Cai,

Fang

et al. 2023

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A growing number of studies explore the grounds for co-authorship (Cutas & Shaw, 2015;Leane et al, 2019;Selbach et al, 2018). With this article, we wish to build specifically on research addressing challenges in co-authorship among doctoral students and supervisors (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In pursuit of sustainable co-authorship practices in doctoral supervision: Addressing the challenges of writing, authorial identity and integrity

Lokhtina

Löfström

Cornér

et al. 2020

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developing an authorial voice along with co-authorship practices can be an important pathway towards building one's professional identity and career. However, challenges may arise when contributors have different expectations about co-authorship conventions and are accountable to different stakeholders. This article aims to explore co-authorship practices between doctoral students and supervisors by drawing on four dimensions that highlight professional challenges across disciplinary and national contexts: 1) supervisors' writing and co-authorship, 2) strategies and activities to support writing, 3) authorial voice, and 4) integrity and (the risk of) plagiarism. The article summarises practices and suggestions for academics and policymakers on how to create and promote an ethical and sustainable approach to co-authorship in supervisory context.

show abstract

“…The valid claim of authorship is fortified by greater participation in several aspects of research, including intellectual and practical. However, as collaborations increase and the size of research groups and participants expand, inducing collaborative authorship in which complex teams might form around individuals with specialized skill sets (Teixeira da Silva, 2011;Jacobs et al, 2018), the ability to credit responsibilities as a function of specific or defined hands-on practical or intellectual participation becomes increasingly difficult to define (Selbach et al, 2018), even more so when there are hundreds or even thousands of authors, such as the 5,154 authors of the Atlas collaboration (Aad et al, 2015). One could argue that to be the first author of such a mega-group is quite an honor because this is the name that tends to be visibly cited, while the remaining 5,153 authors are clustered within the "et al"…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Silva¹

2021

OIR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeAuthorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.Design/methodology/approachTo appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.FindingsAcademic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.Originality/valueWithin the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

show abstract

Academic Literacies: Appraisal and social sanction about authorship and scientific integrity

Cited by 6 publications

References 16 publications

Understanding co‐corresponding authorship: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview

Understanding co‐corresponding authorship: A bibliometric analysis and detailed overview

In pursuit of sustainable co-authorship practices in doctoral supervision: Addressing the challenges of writing, authorial identity and integrity

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About