Exploring researchers’ perspectives on authorship decision making

Abstract

Context Authorship has major implications for researchers’ careers. Hence, journals require researchers to meet formal authorship criteria. However, researchers frequently admit to violating these criteria, which suggests that authorship is a complex issue. This study aims to unpack the complexities inherent in researchers’ conceptualisations of questionable authorship practices and to identify factors that make researchers vulnerable to engaging in such practices. Methods A total of 26 North American medical education researchers at a range of career stages were interviewed. Participants were asked to respond to two vignettes, of which one portrayed honorary authorship and the other described an author order scenario, and then to describe related authorship experiences. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results Participants conceptualised questionable authorship practices in various ways and articulated several ethically grey areas. Personal and situational factors were identified, including hierarchy, resource dependence, institutional culture and gender; these contributed to participants’ vulnerability to and involvement in questionable authorship practices. Participants described negative instances of questionable authorship practices as well as situations in which these practices were used for virtuous purposes. Participants rationalised engagement in questionable authorship practices by suggesting that, although technically violating authorship criteria, such practices could be reasonable when they seemed to benefit science. Conclusions Authorship guidelines portray authorship decisions as being black and white, effectively sidestepping key dimensions that create ethical shades of grey. These findings show that researchers generally recognise these shades of grey and in some cases acknowledge having bent the rules themselves. Sometimes their flexibility is driven by benevolent aims aligned with their own values or prevailing norms such as inclusivity. At other times participation in these practices is framed not as a choice, but rather as a consequence of researchers’ vulnerability to individual or system factors beyond their control. Taken together, these findings provide insights to help researchers and institutions move beyond recognition of the challenges of authorship and contribute to the development of informed, evidence‐based solutions.

Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation

“…40,41 In addition, findings from a study of research practices in medical education suggest that some of this growth in author team size may be related to questionable research practices like honorary authorship. 42,43 As the field of medical education continues to mature and its literature base grows, strategic selection of team members, including the rightsizing of the knowledge synthesis team, will become increasingly important. Thus, future research may be needed to further examine the composition and size of knowledge synthesis teams in order to provide evidence-based practical guidance on team construction.…”

I, We, andThey: A Linguistic and Narrative Exploration of the Authorship Process

“…[11][12][13][14][15][16] These studies have also identified factors beyond ICMJE criteria that may influence authorship, including: reciprocity (e.g., to return a favor to someone who helped in some way in the past); feelings of loyalty or obligation, particularly to advisors or mentors; beliefs that the existing criteria do not take into account the important "minutiae of research beyond writing and data reduction"; 15 and institutional and social structures and hierarchies like tenure status, gender, and minority status. 2,11,15,[17][18][19][20][21] Despite guiding criteria, then, the social practice of authorship remains a contested one in that published criteria and enacted practice do not always align.…”

Scholarly experiences in medical education: Considering authorship

“…Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA 6 In these interviews, without prompt multiple participants veered away from the present to describe authorship experiences from their training. In recounting these experiences, which in some cases were decades old, the participants described instances in which they were excluded from manuscripts, relegated to an unexpected placement in author order, or pressured to add individuals that they felt did not warrant authorship.…”

“…Second, the impact of authorship experiences can be long‐lasting with reverberations across a researcher's career. In a recent qualitative study, my colleagues and I interviewed 26 junior and senior medical education faculty members in North America about their recent authorship experiences 6 . In these interviews, without prompt multiple participants veered away from the present to describe authorship experiences from their training.…”

“…For example, a survey of medical education researchers identified that only 58.1% of respondents were familiar with the International Committee on Medical Journal Editors guidelines for authorship 3 . Additionally, in interviews medical education researchers familiar with these guidelines choose to interpret them in a variety of ways depending on their current situation 6 …”