Authorship-coauthorship

Abstract

The scientific authorship is based on creativity and originality. Apart from being the means for the attribution of the credit, the authorship also comprises the responsibility and accountability, and it is also the basis for evaluation of scientists. Because of steady rise in the number of multiauthored articles in biomedical sciences, the problem of undeserved authorship has emerged. Since the false authorship undermines the very basis of the publication ethics, the scientific community has undertaken measures for the prevention and remedy of such a highly unethical issue

Source misuse in applied linguistics articles: Exploring proficient and novice English writersʼ perceptions of plagiarism

“…Similarly, the extent of text matching in single and multi-authored articles, using statistical a Mann-Whitney U test, exhibited no statistically significant difference between the two groups. The contradictory findings with the previous literature (Bennett & Taylor, 2003;Rennie et al, 1997;Sun, 2013;Vukovic-Dekic, 2003) could be explained by the limited number of single author articles in this study which might have influenced the statistical result. The results of the interview with the proficient and novice authors revealed their insights into and familiarity with plagiarism and inappropriate forms of textual borrowings.…”

“…Thus, this discrepancy of results suggests that the multi‐authorship practice in terms of the degree of authorsʼ accountability might not be the same across various disciplines. This is because the number of authors contributing to a study to be published varies to a great extent; while in papers of Applied Linguistics the number of (co)authors hardly exceeds four individuals, in life sciences and medical papers it commonly goes beyond 10 (up to 50 and even more) (co)authors (see Vukovic‐Dekic, ). The aggregate authorship would lead to false or “undeserved” authors (Slone, ) who usually have no or least responsibility toward the readers, thus influencing honest authorship (Benett & Taylor, 2003).…”

“…Nevertheless, multi‐authorship might diminish the shared responsibility among authors (Vesterman, ). This steady rise of multi‐author publications, in combination with pressure to publish within academia, has led to the dilution of authors’ accountability, and the problem of false or “undeserved” authorship has emerged as a consequence (Bennet & Taylor, 2003; Rennie et al, ; Slone, ; Vukovic‐Dekic, ). It is hypothesized that this lack of accountability in co‐authored papers may affect their originality as well.…”

The White Bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism

“…S cientific authorship is evidence of creativity and originality. 1 For the young investigator, authorship of scientific publications is a reward for hard work and is a principal academic currency for a future career in medical research. 2 Unfortunately, this aspirational activity can be blunted and sabotaged by the greed and dishonesty of senior collaborators.…”

Detecting, identifying and visualizing research groups in co-authorship networks

“…Despite the limitations of co-authorship-based inventories (Laudel 2002;Melin and Persson 1996;Subramanyam 1983;Vuckovic-Dekic 2003), many a study has used this approach to determine the structure of scientific collaboration and individual researcher status or position. Networking among scientists, in which the links grow out of coauthorship of one or more documents, is often more real from a social network standpoint than institutional networking.…”