Psychology of the Scientist: LXVII. Assignment of Authorship Credit in Psychological Research

Abstract

This study examined the value researchers assign to specific research activities and the assignment of authorship relative to the reported contributions to these tasks. All single, first, and second authors of empirical articles in the 1989 volume of the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology were surveyed by mail. “Writing the paper” and “Having the idea” were the two research tasks most highly valued. Most authors followed the weighted value of each author's contribution to the completion of the research, but for some the order of authorship was misplaced and in some cases assigned when the person had made no direct contribution. The merit of having discipline-wide standardized guidelines for research activities was discussed.

A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines

“…Fifty-four studies examined the perceptions of authorship buy different stakeholders, authorship definitions in use and actual practices, and contributions for deserving authorship (T able 1 and T able S3): 31 studies from the health research field [13], [16], [23], [25], [26], [31], [35], [36], [39], [41], [47], [50], [52], [54], [57], [60], [65], [66], [77], [80], [82], [94], [100], [102]–[104], [106], [110]–[112], [121];12 studies from social sciences [11], [12], [14], [18], [24], [27], [33], [34], [48], [49], [55], [91], 6 studies from more than one research field [29], [45], [90], [116], [122], [128] and 5 studies from natural sciences, published in 6 articles [46], [58], [79], [101], [119], [126].…”

Psychology of the Scientist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding Authorship Issues in Psychological Publications

“…As research in other areas of psychological ethics (see Bersoff, 1995) has shown, however, the APA guidehes are not universally understood, accepted, or applied. As guidehes, the code of ethics is general thus leaving interpretation and application to individuals involved in the process (Wagner, et al, 1994). The result is that it is often ".…”

Guiding Undergraduates Through the Process of First Authorship

“…Much has been written about the ethics of assigning authorship credit in the sciences and social sciences (see Maurer, 2017, for a review), and attempts have been made to fairly determine authorship order by (a) surveying past authors about their experiences (e.g., Wagner et al, 1994; Sandler and Russell, 2005; Moore and Griffin, 2006; Geelhoed et al, 2007), (b) assessing reactions to hypothetical authorship scenarios (e.g., Costa and Gatz, 1992; Bartle et al, 2000; Apgar and Congress, 2005), (c) proposing step-by-step decision-making models (Fine and Kurdek, 1993; Foster and Ray, 2012; Maurer, 2017), and (d) outlining quantitative systems that assign weighted points to tasks associated with publishing (e.g., Winston, 1985; Kosslyn, 2015). The consensus seems to be that writing the manuscript is either the most important factor in determining first authorship (e.g., Winston, 1985; Bartle et al, 2000; Apgar and Congress, 2005) or at least tied with idea origination as the most important factor (Wagner et al, 1994; Kosslyn, 2015). The “authorship determination scorecard” on the American Psychological Association's website (https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/students/authorship-paper.aspx), for example, allots 170 of 1,040 points (16%) for idea generation/refinement; 110 points (11%) for design/measures; 160 points (15%) for statistical analysis, and 600 points (58%) for writing/revision.…”