Misusing authorship

Pancherz, Hans

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.05.001

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Embora se identifiquem relatos atribuindo a autoria de um trabalho diretamente a seu executor principal, corrobora-se a ideia de uma concepção híbrida, não relacionando a autoria exclusivamente a uma única pessoa. Entre as modalidades de delitos éticos envolvendo os créditos autorais 23,24 , destaca-se a conduta que consiste em agregar ao escopo do trabalho científico o nome de pessoas que contribuíram de forma incipiente ou não contribuíram na elaboração do material, situação que pode ser relativamente comum na academia 25 . Ademais, a autoria fantasma pode configurar-se como uma situação em que os créditos intelectuais do material científico não são destinados a um autor que colaborou significativamente 26 .…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Conhecimentos dos estudantes de pós-graduação em enfermagem sobre má conduta em pesquisa [Postgraduate nursing students’ knowledge of research misconduct] [Conocimiento de estudiantes de postgrado en enfermería sobre la mala conducta en la investigación]

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objetivo: analisar os conhecimentos dos estudantes de pós-graduação em enfermagem sobre má conduta em pesquisa. Método: estudo qualitativo, descritivo e exploratório, norteado pelos critérios do Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: a synthesis of recommendations, realizada com 40 estudantes de mestrado e doutorado, de uma universidade pública situada no Sul do Brasil. Os dados foram coletados por intermédio de entrevistas semiestruturadas, em outubro de 2020, com a utilização de aplicativo síncrono, os quais foram submetidos à análise textual discursiva. O protocolo de pesquisa foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa. Resultados: emergiram duas categorias: Integridade científica versus má conduta: fatores determinantes e Tipos e definições de má conduta. Conclusão: Os pós-graduandos possuem conhecimento coeso relacionado à gravidade dos comportamentos inadequados nas pesquisas científicas, bem como as consequências nocivas advindas dessa conduta, contemplando um domínio abstrato quando relacionado às questões de moralidade e integridade e sua absoluta inversão.ABSTRACTObjective: to examine postgraduate nursing students’ knowledge of research misconduct. Method: this exploratory, qualitative, descriptive study, guided by the criteria of the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: a synthesis of recommendations, considered 40 master's and doctoral students at a public university in southern Brazil. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews, in October 2020, using a synchronous application, and treated by textual discourse analysis. The study was approved by the research ethics committee. Results: two categories emerged: “Scientific integrity versus misconduct: determining factors” and “Types and definitions of misconduct”. Conclusion: postgraduate students have cohesive knowledge of the severity of inappropriate behavior in scientific research and of the harmful consequences of such conduct, contemplating an abstract domain when related to questions of morality and integrity and their absolute inversion.RESUMENObjetivo: analizar el conocimiento de los estudiantes de postgrado en enfermería sobre la mala conducta en investigación. Método: investigación cualitativa, descriptiva y exploratoria, guiada por los criterios de los Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research: a synthesis of recommendations, realizada junto a 40 estudiantes de máster y doctorado de una universidad pública ubicada en el sur de Brasil. Los datos fueron recolectados a través de entrevistas semiestructuradas, en octubre de 2020, utilizando una aplicación síncrona, y después sometidos a análisis textual discursivo. El Comité de Ética en Investigación aprobó el protocolo de investigación. Resultados: surgieron dos categorías: Integridad científica versus mala conducta: factores determinantes y Tipos y definiciones de mala conducta. Conclusión: Los estudiantes de postgrado tienen conocimientos cohesionados con respecto a la gravedad de las conductas inadecuadas en la investigación científica, así como las consecuencias nocivas derivadas de esas conductas, contemplando un dominio abstracto cuando relacionado con cuestiones de moralidad e integridad y su inversión absoluta.

show abstract

Section: Discussionunclassified

Conhecimentos dos estudantes de pós-graduação em enfermagem sobre má conduta em pesquisa [Postgraduate nursing students’ knowledge of research misconduct] [Conocimiento de estudiantes de postgrado en enfermería sobre la mala conducta en la investigación]

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that editorial comment, David J. Greenblatt portrays an insightful historical perspective of authorship in the pharmacological and physiological sciences, showing, using MEDLINE/PubMed data, how the number of authors per paper has increased from about 1.5 in the 1950s to about 6 in 2020 1 . Another journal ( American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics ) also recorded a historical increase in the number of authors per paper, noting that between 1956 and 1965, 87% of papers had only 1 author (4% had >3 authors), but in 1966–2015, <5% of papers were authored by a single author 2 . Marder (2022) also noted that until the 1960s, derivative works of PhDs usually only carried the PhD student's name, to reflect a personal endeavor, whereas PhD‐derived studies post‐1970s tended to also include—at minimum—the PhD supervisor as well 3 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship in Academic Literature

Silva¹

2023

Clinical Pharm in Drug Dev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CPDD has transparently outlined authorship-related policies in place for validating authorship. 1 In that editorial comment, David J. Greenblatt portrays an insightful historical perspective of authorship in the pharmacological and physiological sciences, showing, using MEDLINE/PubMed data, how the number of authors per paper has increased from about 1.5 in the 1950s to about 6 in 2020. 1 Another journal (American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics) also recorded a historical increase in the number of authors per paper, noting that between 1956 and 1965, 87% of papers had only 1 author (4% had >3 authors), but in 1966-2015, <5% of papers were authored by a single author. 2 Marder (2022) also noted that until the 1960s, derivative works of PhDs usually only carried the PhD student's name, to reflect a personal endeavor, whereas PhD-derived studies post-1970s tended to also include-at minimum-the PhD supervisor as well. 3 Who is a valid author, and is there a limit to the number of authors? There are complexities associated with ascertaining the validity of authorship in multipleauthor papers, especially in the light of increasingly complex multidisciplinary and "big data" research, so the intellectual significance of individual authors is a key factor. 4 Conversely, the failure to attribute authorship to valid intellectual contributors is unethical, 4 while sudden requests to change authorship (adding, removing, indicating nonpermitted inclusion, or exclusion) can be challenging for journal editors to detect and manage. 5 Ambiguity and discord often arise because there is subjective interpretation surrounding what constitutes a "substantial contribution." 6 It is also complex to ascertain the validity of authorship from a deontological perspective because different forms of contribution may be incommensurable while the determination of responsibility is intangible. 7

show abstract