Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

Smith, Elise; Williams‐Jones, Bryn; Master, Zubin; Larivière, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Paul‐Hus, Adèle; Shi, Min; Resnik, David B.

doi:10.1007/s11948-019-00112-4

Cited by 51 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering that the inclusion of contribution statements is derived from an effort to provide more transparency and go beyond the limitations of authorship especially in multi-authored publications, can the fact that this is self-reported information be misleading in some cases? Furthermore, if this type of statements are to be used and scrutinized in an evaluative context which is highly competitive, it could lead to further disputes and misbehaviour related to contribution disagreements ( Smith et al, 2020 ).…”

Section: Future Directions On Profiling Diversity In Research Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task specialization across research careers

Robinson-García

Costas

Sugimoto

et al. 2020

eLife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research careers are typically envisioned as a single path in which researchers start being one of a large number of researchers working under the guidance of one or more experienced scientists and, if they are successful, end with the individual leading their own research group and training future generations of scientists. Here we study the author contribution statements of published research papers in order to explore possible biases and disparities in career trajectories in science. We used Bayesian networks to train a prediction model based on a dataset of 70,694 publications from PLoS journals, which included 347,136 distinct authors and their associated contribution statements. This model was used to predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and to apply a robust archetypal analysis to profile scientists across four career stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. All three of the archetypes we found - leader, specialized, and supporting - were encountered for early-career and mid-career researchers. Junior researchers displayed only two archetypes (specialized, and supporting), as did late-career researchers (leader and supporting). Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tended to have longer careers than those assigned to the supporting archetype. We also observed consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belonged to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belonged to the specialized archetype, especially for early-career and mid-career researchers.

show abstract

Section: Future Directions On Profiling Diversity In Research Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task specialization across research careers

Robinson-García

Costas

Sugimoto

et al. 2020

eLife

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Future Directions On Profiling Diversity In Research Careersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Task specialization across research careers

Larivière

2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We model a set of 70,694 publications and 347,136 distinct authors using Bayesian networks to predict scientists’ specific contributions on each of their publications. We predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and apply an archetypal analysis to profile scientists by career stage. We divide scientific careers into four stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. Three scientific archetypes are found throughout the four career stages: leader, specialized, and supporting. All three archetypes are encountered for the early- and mid-career stages, whereas for junior and late-career stages only two archetypes are found. Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tend to have longer careers than researchers who belong to the supporting archetype. There is consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belong to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belong to the specialized archetype, especially for early and mid-career researchers.

show abstract

“…There are many examples of significant misconduct, such as (among others) the citation of non-contributing authors (Fong and Wilhite 2017;McNutt et al 2018;Petersen et al 2019;Smith et al 2019;Wilhite et al 2019;Sweedler 2019;Chawla 2019) and the absence of citation that is due (Garfield 1980;Trevors and Saier 2008). The general public has become increasingly aware of what constitutes good scientific practice and the performance of scientists is under its scrutiny (Koch 2016;Goldman et al 2017;Record 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the difficulties of being rigorous in environmental geochemistry studies: some recommendations for designing an impactful paper

Pourret

Bollinger

Hullebusch

2019

Environ Sci Pollut Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There have been numerous environmental geochemistry studies using chemical, geological, ecological, and toxicological methods but each of these fields requires more subject specialist rigour than has generally been applied so far. Field-specific terminology has been misused and the resulting interpretations rendered inaccurate. In this paper, we propose a series of suggestions, based on our experience as teachers, researchers, reviewers, and editorial board members, to help authors to avoid pitfalls. Many scientific inaccuracies continue to be unchecked and are repeatedly republished by the scientific community. These recommendations should help our colleagues and editorial board members, as well as reviewers, to avoid the numerous inaccuracies and misconceptions currently in circulation and establish a trend towards greater rigour in scientific writing.

show abstract

Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science

Cited by 51 publications

References 59 publications

Task specialization across research careers

Task specialization across research careers

Task specialization across research careers

On the difficulties of being rigorous in environmental geochemistry studies: some recommendations for designing an impactful paper

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About