Taiwanese Researchers’ Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study

Pan, Sophia Jui-An; Chou, Chien

doi:10.1007/s11948-020-00180-x

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 69 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This pressure might impact the research practices of PhD students, leading them to commit questionable practices to fulfill quantitative requirements from research institutions 26 . This situation was recently reported in a survey of Taiwanese doctoral students who committed questionable authorship practices due to the pressure to achieve academic success 27 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Biomedical doctoral students’ research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

Nguyen,

Sharp,

Superchi

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Our aim was to describe the research practices of doctoral students facing a dilemma to research integrity and to assess the impact of inappropriate research environments, i.e. exposure to (a) a post-doctoral researcher who committed a Detrimental Research Practice (DRP) in a similar situation and (b) a supervisor who did not oppose the DRP. We conducted two 2-arm, parallel-group randomized controlled trials. We created 10 vignettes describing a realistic dilemma with two alternative courses of action (good practice versus DRP). 630 PhD students were randomized through an online system to a vignette (a) with (n = 151) or without (n = 164) exposure to a post-doctoral researcher; (b) with (n = 155) or without (n = 160) exposure to a supervisor. The primary outcome was a score from − 5 to + 5, where positive scores indicated the choice of DRP and negative scores indicated good practice. Overall, 37% of unexposed participants chose to commit DRP with important variation across vignettes (minimum 10%; maximum 66%). The mean difference [95%CI] was 0.17 [− 0.65 to 0.99;], p = 0.65 when exposed to the post-doctoral researcher, and 0.79 [− 0.38; 1.94], p = 0.16, when exposed to the supervisor. In conclusion, we did not find evidence of an impact of postdoctoral researchers and supervisors on student research practices.Trial registration: NCT04263805, NCT04263506 (registration date 11 February 2020).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 85%

Biomedical doctoral students’ research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

Nguyen,

Sharp,

Superchi

et al. 2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several reasons can be behind gifting authorship to someone. Junior authors might include more senior ones because of respect or they are forced to do so [ 16 ]. Senior authors may gift authorship to juniors in order to help them obtain post-doctoral scholarships or tenure [ 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication games: In the web of reciprocity

Barta

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present processes of research assessment, i.e. focusing on one or a few, related, scientometrics, foster questionable authorship practices, like gifting authorship to non-contributing people. An especially harmful one of these unethical practices is the formation of publication cartels, where authors offer gift authorship to each other reciprocally. Here, by developing a simple model and a simulation of the publication process I investigate how beneficial cartels can be and what measure can be used to restrict them. My results indicate that publication cartels can significantly boost members’ productivity even if paper counts are weighted by the inverse of author number (the 1/n rule). Nevertheless, applying the 1/n rule generates conflicts of interest both among cartel members themselves and between cartel members and non-members which might lead to the self-purification of the academic publishing industry.

show abstract

“…Several reasons can be behind gifting authorship to someone. Junior authors might include more senior ones because of respect or they are forced to do so (Pan and Chou 2020). Senior authors may gift authorship to juniors in order to help them obtain post-doctoral scholarships or tenure (Von Bergen and Bressler 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publication games: in the web of reciprocity

Barta

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present processes of research assessment, i.e. focusing on one or a few, related, scientometrics, foster questionable authorship practices, like gifting authorship to non-contributing people. An especially harmful one of these unethical practices is the formation of publication cartels, where authors offer gift authorship to each other reciprocally. Here, by developing a simple model and a simulation of the publication process I investigate how beneficial cartels can be and what measure can be used to restrict them. My results indicate that publication cartels can significantly boost members' productivity even if paper counts are weighted by the inverse of author number (the !OPN rule). Nevertheless, applying the !OPN rule generates conflicts of interest both among cartel members themselves and between members and non-members which might lead to the self-purification of the academic publishing industry.

show abstract

Taiwanese Researchers’ Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study

Cited by 6 publications

References 69 publications

Biomedical doctoral students’ research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

Biomedical doctoral students’ research practices when facing dilemmas: two vignette-based randomized control trials

Publication games: In the web of reciprocity

Publication games: in the web of reciprocity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About