Credit Where Credit is Due? The Impact of Project Contributions and Social Factors on Authorship and Inventorship

Häussler, Carolin; Sauermann, Henry

doi:10.2139/ssrn.1750240

Cited by 30 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…While certain aspects of this case are likely unique to Vancouver, other insights are reflective of wider trends or realities in biomedical organizational fields. For example, science and technology studies focused on other domains and regions have similarly found that individuals collaborate to gain access to capital (Katz & Martin, 1997;Melin, 2000;Shrum et al, 2007) and that scientists and clinicians draw from specific institutions in their work (Ben-David, 1960;Haeussler & Sauermann, 2013;Lowy, 1987;Wainwright et al, 2006). What remains unique here is my integration of these concepts into an empirical study that shows how the interrelation of capital and institutions influence collaboration decisions within an organizational field.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Role of Institutions and Capital in Intersectoral Collaboration: Infection and Immunity Research and Development Collaboration in Vancouver

Lander

2014

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaborations between and within sectors are common and crucial to the creation and transfer of knowledge. It is often unclear who is involved in the collaboration, and with whom and why they are collaborating. I studied reasons for collaboration and how capital and institutions affect collaboration through a mixed methods analysis of infection and immunity research and development collaborations in Vancouver, Canada between individuals affiliated with universities, firms, and health-care organizations. I found that both capital and institutions were important in collaboration decisions. Collaboration worked as a balancing act between capital and institutions. Potential collaborators needed to offer different capital to the collaboration while supporting the dominant institutions of potential collaborators. Participants' organizational and sectoral affiliations influenced available capital and dominant institutions. These findings help policy makers understand collaboration dynamics between sectors and how translation can occur between universities, firms, and health-care organizations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…The primary motivation of participants strongly influenced by academic institutions was publishing papers and getting grants. Papers act as currency in the scientific community (Haeussler & Sauermann, 2013). Grants and papers were particularly viewed as a currency for participants who ran research labs.…”

Section: Sectors Capital and Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Institutions and Capital in Intersectoral Collaboration: Infection and Immunity Research and Development Collaboration in Vancouver

Lander

2014

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, the changing organization of scientific work groups should change the relation between scientific production as measured by authorship lists on publications and the reputations and therefore career prospects of scientists (Biagioli, 2003;Fuchs, 1992). Future work is also needed to explore how the composition of teams maps onto author lists (the issue of guest and ghost authors), and how that relates to the division of labor and other structural variables (Haeussler and Sauermann, 2013;Lissoni et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The bureaucratization of science

Walsh

Lee

2015

Research Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Conversely, "ghost authors" are individuals who are not recognized as coauthors despite their significant contribution. Recent work has shown that norms of inclusion vary by discipline and that inclusion is often positively correlated to a scientist's social standing (Biagioli 2002, Haeussler and Sauermann 2013, Lissoni et al 2013. Decoupling contribution and authorship increases measurement error in our analysis: to avoid some of these issues we exclude from our sample scientists who have taken part in any publication with more than 20 coauthors.…”

Section: Independent Variable-collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Exploring Trade-offs in the Organization of Scientific Work: Collaboration and Scientific Reward

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W hen do scientists and other innovators organize into collaborative teams, and why do they do so for some projects and not others? At the core of this important organizational choice is, we argue, a trade-off scientists make between the productive efficiency of collaboration and the credit allocation that arises after the completion of collaborative work. In this paper, we explore this trade-off by developing a model to structure our understanding of the factors shaping researcher collaborative choices, in particular the implicit allocation of credit among participants in scientific projects. We then use the annual research activity of 661 faculty scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology over a 31-year period to explore the trade-off between collaboration and reward at the individual faculty level and to infer critical parameters in the collaborative organization of scientific work.

show abstract

Credit Where Credit is Due? The Impact of Project Contributions and Social Factors on Authorship and Inventorship

Cited by 30 publications

References 70 publications

The Role of Institutions and Capital in Intersectoral Collaboration: Infection and Immunity Research and Development Collaboration in Vancouver

The Role of Institutions and Capital in Intersectoral Collaboration: Infection and Immunity Research and Development Collaboration in Vancouver

The bureaucratization of science

Exploring Trade-offs in the Organization of Scientific Work: Collaboration and Scientific Reward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About