Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship
Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship
复制标题
作者氛围：研究作者伦理问题的新工具
DOI：
10.1080/08989621.2022.2140587
复制
发表时间：
2022
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Cheruvelil, Kendra Spence
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Douglas, Hannah M.;Elliott, Kevin C.;Settles, Isis H.;Montgomery, Georgina M.;Davis, Tangier;Nadolsky, Lexi;Cheruvelil, Kendra Spence
学术出版物的作者身份对科学家的职业生涯至关重要，但关于如何在出版物上包括和订购作者的决定往往充满了困难的伦理问题。为了更好地了解学者的经验与作者，我们开发了一个新的概念，作者气候，评估与作者决定相关的程序，信息和分配正义的看法。我们对来自美国生物学、经济学、物理学和心理学系的3,000多名博士生、博士后研究人员和助理教授进行了一项具有代表性的调查。我们发现，在科学团队中倾向于拥有更多权力的人比那些倾向于拥有较少权力的人更能感受到作者氛围。按字母顺序分配作者的方法与程序正义和信息正义的较高认识有关，但与分配正义的较低认识有关。具有更边缘化身份的个人也倾向于比没有边缘化身份的人更消极地看待作者氛围。这些结果说明了作者气候的概念如何促进对早期职业学者的作者经验的理解，并强调了可以采取的潜在步骤，以促进所有身份的学者更积极的作者经验。
Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists’ careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars’ experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept,authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars’ authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.