The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains

Johann, David; Mayer, Sabrina Jasmin

doi:10.1007/s11024-018-9363-3

Cited by 23 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Using new data collected by the Zurich Survey of Academics (ZSoA, Rauhut et al, 2021aRauhut et al, , 2021b, the research at hand replicates Johann and Mayer's (2019) analysis of researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship and expands their scope: Firstly, the present study is not limited to Germany, but also includes Austria and Switzerland. Secondly, it also examines the role that the perceived pressure to publish plays in researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Being named as an author or co-author of a scientific publication traditionally fulfills several functions: It enables readers to recognize who has done the work and who is responsible for it, but also who is entitled to receive credit and reputation in the natural sciences and medical and health sciences exhibit a wider understanding of authorship than their colleagues in the humanities and social sciences (Johann & Mayer, 2019). 1 The findings of Wren et al (2007) as well as Johann and Mayer (2019) are not surprising, given that researchers may face a "prisoner's dilemma" (Shaw, 2014): Ideally, researchers should follow the authorship guidelines that apply to them and they should not attach too much importance to their publication record and the impact 2 of their publications. However, they may fear the potential consequences when following this ethical code of conduct strictly, knowing that other researchers who do focus heavily on their publication record and impact of their publications, and who interpret authorship more leniently, may gain a competitive advantage over them, e.g., better chances to acquire third-party funding or to advance their careers (Shaw, 2014; see also Rivera, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Johann

2022

Sci Eng Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relying on data collected by the Zurich Survey of Academics (ZSoA), a unique representative online survey among academics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), this paper replicates Johann and Mayer's (Minerva 57(2):175–196, 2019) analysis of researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship and expands their scope. The primary goals of the study at hand are to learn more about (a) country differences in perceptions of scientific authorship, as well as (b) the influence of perceived publication pressure on authorship perceptions. The results indicate that academics in Switzerland interpret scientific authorship more leniently than their colleagues in Germany and Austria. The findings further indicate that, as perceived pressure to publish increases, researchers are more likely to belong to a group of academics who hold the view that any type of contribution/task justifies co-authorship, including even those contributions/tasks that do not justify co-authorship according to most authorship guidelines. In summary, the present study suggests that action is required to harmonize regulations for scientific authorship and to improve the research culture.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 68%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Johann

2022

Sci Eng Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Like prior studies analyzing research collaboration using publication coauthorship (Hall et al, 2018 ; Lee et al, 2015 ), our analysis conceptualizes the collaboration as the coauthors listed on the final publication and does not capture the nature or degree of collaborator involvement and how the collaboration changed during the knowledge creation process through the addition or subtraction of other contributors. Given norms in lab‐based research (e.g., biomedical sciences) that give the most credit to the first and last authors listed on a publication (Johann & Mayer, 2019 ), we estimated the same models on the subset of collaborations where only first/last authorship counts as a publication for the dyad. This robustness check yielded a very similar pattern of significant results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge creation through collaboration: The role of shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity

Stephens

Cummings

2021

Asso for Info Science & Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines how shared affiliations within an institution (e.g., same primary appointment, same secondary appointment, same research center, same laboratory/facility) and physical proximity (e.g., walking distance between collaborator offices) shape knowledge creation through biomedical science collaboration in general, and interdisciplinary collaboration in particular. Using archival and publication data, we examine pairwise research collaborations among 1,138 faculty members over a 12-year period at a medical school in the United States. Modeling at the dyadic level, we find that faculty members with more shared institutional affiliations are positively associated with knowledge creation and knowledge impact, and that this association is moderated by the physical proximity of collaborators. We further find that the positive influence of disciplinary diversity (e.g., collaborators from different fields) on knowledge impact is stronger among pairs that share more affiliations and is significantly reduced as the physical distance among collaborators increases. These results support the idea that shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity can increase interpersonal contact, providing more opportunities to develop trust and mutual understanding, and thus alleviating some of the coordination issues that can arise with higher disciplinary diversity. We discuss the implications for future research on scientific collaborations, managerial practice regarding office space allocation, and strategic planning of initiatives aimed at promoting interdisciplinary collaboration.

show abstract

“…This applies to experimental practice as much as to policy, organisation, and funding: even an ostensibly identical procedure may have different results in different labs (Collins 2001). Similarly, conventions about how research is valued, and how it should be reported, vary between epistemic cultures (Hessels et al 2019;Johann & Mayer 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epistemic Living Spaces, International Mobility, and Local Variation in Scientific Practice

Davies

2019

Minerva

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores local variations in scientific practice through the lens of scientists' international mobility. Its aim is twofold: to explore how the notion of epistemic living spaces may be mobilised as a tool for systematically exploring differences in scientific practice across locations, and to contribute to literature on scientific mobility. Using material from an interview study with scientists with experience of international mobility, and epistemic living spaces as an analytical frame, the paper describes a set of aspects of life in science that interviewees described as being different in different places. These axes of variation were: embodied routines of research; resource levels and salaries; daily or longer-term rhythms of scientific life (and their relation to rhythms of home or family); 'efficiency' and how work time is used; degree of hierarchy; the nature of social interactions between colleagues; the purposes of research; the social and interpersonal organisation of knowledge production; and the scale or ambition of research. In presenting an exploratory overview of these variations, the article points the way for future comparative investigation of epistemic cultures through studies of international mobility.

show abstract

The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains

Cited by 23 publications

References 60 publications

Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Knowledge creation through collaboration: The role of shared institutional affiliations and physical proximity

Epistemic Living Spaces, International Mobility, and Local Variation in Scientific Practice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About