Multiple Authors, Multiple Problems

Abstract

T he average number of authors on scientific papers is skyrocketing. That's partly because labs are bigger, problems are more complicated, and more different subspecialties are needed. But it's also because U.S. government agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have started to promote "team science." As physics developed in the post-World War II era, federal funds built expensive national facilities, and these served as surfaces on which collaborations could crystallize naturally. That has produced some splendid results. Multidisciplinary teams have been slower to develop in biology, but now the rush is on. NIH recently sponsored a meeting entitled "Catalyzing Team Science"-something new for an agency traditionally wedded to the investigator-initiated small-project kind of science. Increasingly complex problems, NIH seems to be saying, will require larger and more diversely specialized groups of investigators. So team science is part of its road map: a "Good Thing." That may be right. Multiple authorship though-however good it may be in other ways-presents problems for journals and for the institutions in which these authors work. For the journals, long lists of authors are hard to deal with in themselves. But those long lists give rise to more serious questions when something goes wrong with the paper. If there is research misconduct, should the liability be joint and several, accruing to all authors? If not, then how should it be allocated among them? If there is an honest mistake in one part of the work but not in others, how should an evaluator aim his or her critique? Such questions plagued the committee that examined the recent high-profile case of fraud in the physics community, the Schön affair, and surely will trouble others. When penalties for research misconduct are considered, it is often argued that an identification of each author's role in the research should be required, in order to help us fix blame. Critics of the notion that authors should share the blame ask, for example, "how can the molecular biologist be expected to certify the honesty and quality of the crystallographer's work?" Some would answer "by knowing that person well enough to rely on him or her." I rather like that response, so with respect to assigning blame for research misconduct, I take the "joint and several" position, knowing that it puts me in a quirky minority. Various practical or impractical suggestions have emerged during the longstanding debate on this issue. One is that each author should provide, and the journal should then publish, an account of that author's particular contribution to the work. Although Science will make it possible for authors to do that, we cannot monitor the authors' designations or negotiate possible disputes over which author actually did what (there's enough of that already, thank you). And listing the individual contributions of each of a couple of dozen authors will, even if it appears only electronically, add some length and complexity to the communication. But a different v...

When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity

“…This is of particular importance for junior researchers seeking promotion and tenure in fiercely competitive domains. Indeed, recent efforts by the National Institutes of Health to promote collaborative approaches to science sparked editorials in the high profile journals Science and Nature that listed numerous institutional disincentives for team science and questioned why any researcher would want to engage in collaborative work (Kennedy, 2003;"Who'd want to work in a team?," 2003).…”

“…From work by Hagstrom (1965) and Beaver (2001) we know that one important dimension of collaboration propensity is whether or not researchers believe collaboration will provide them with access to expertise, experimental apparatus, data sets and other scarce resources that are useful or necessary in answering research questions of interest. At the same time, it has been suggested that collaboration in some fields can mask individual achievement and make it difficult to receive recognition for one's efforts via employment offers, promotion and tenure, and important prizes (Kennedy, 2003;Knorr Cetina, 1999;"Who'd want to work in a team?," 2003). Thus, the second aspect of collaboration propensity is the extent to which researchers perceive collaboration as a component of a viable career path, which they think will lead them to success.…”

Effects of Author Contribution Disclosures and Numeric Limitations on Authorship Trends

“…[1][2][3][4][5] Indeed, data suggest that coauthorship has increased during the past 20 years, yet the reasons behind this increase remain controversial. [3][4][5][6][7] Since 1978, the group currently known as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has met to enact uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Although the initial intent of the ICMJE was to consolidate publication format, its scope has broadened throughout the years to include ethical issues surrounding authorship standards.…”

Understanding Faculty Collaboration and Productivity: A Case Study

“…Next, we identified the orders of authors, and set placement=1 if there was only one author in the article. Since several works believed that the first author is usually the person who has taken the most responsibility and work (Reisenberg & Lundberg, 1990;Kennedy, 2003;Rennie et al, 1997;Mattsson et al, 2011), we placed more weight to the first author when there were more than one authors contained in an article. The placement is thus calculated as below:…”