Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines
Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11192-012-0773-y
复制
发表时间：
2012-12-01
期刊：
影响因子：
3.9
通讯作者：
Marusic, Ana
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bosnjak, Lana;Marusic, Ana
关于作者要求的指南在生物医学期刊中很常见，但尚不清楚跨研究学科的期刊和学术专业组织是如何定义作者身份的。在美国职业伦理学研究中心的在线数据库中，对来自科学引文索引(SCI)和社会科学引文索引(SSCI)的185种期刊、来自艺术与人文引文索引(A&HCI)的260种期刊以及来自专业组织的651条伦理准则的作者身份陈述的普遍性、它们的特殊性和语气以及作者所需的投稿进行了评估。在SCI中，53%的排名靠前的期刊有作者声明，而在SSCI中，这一比例为32%。在随机抽样的A&HCI索引的期刊中，只有6%的期刊涉及作者身份。只有71条(11%)的道德准则包含作者身份声明。几乎所有期刊都定义了作者标准，相比之下，33%的道德规范(chi(2)(1)=75.975；P<；0.001)。期刊中声明的语气是雄心勃勃的，而道德准则使用了定义作者的规范性语言(chi(2)(1)=51.709，P<；0.001)。大多数期刊都要求作者既有研究稿件，也有写作稿件，而三分之二的道德准则只将研究定义为强制性稿件。总而言之，科学领域的期刊和专业组织中作者身份定义的缺乏和多样性可能会让研究人员感到困惑，并导致糟糕的作者身份实践。研究中的所有利益相关者都需要合作，营造一种环境，让作者的道德行为成为一种规范。
Guidelines on authorship requirements are common in biomedical journals but it is not known how authorship is defined by journals and scholarly professional organizations across research disciplines. Prevalence of authorship statements, their specificity and tone, and contributions required for authorship were assessed in 185 journals from Science Citation Index (SCI) and Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 260 journals from Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI) and 651 codes of ethics from professional organizations from the online database of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Profession, USA. In SCI, 53 % of the top-ranked journals had an authorship statement, compared with 32 % in SSCI. In a random sample of A&HCI-indexed journals, only 6 % of the journals addressed authorship. Only 71 (11 %) codes of ethics carried a statement on authorship. Almost all journals had defined authorship criteria compared with 33 % of the ethics codes (chi(2)(1) = 75.975; P < 0.001). The tone of the statements in the journals was aspirational, whereas ethics codes used a normative language for defining authorship (chi(2)(1) = 51.709, P < 0.001). Journals mostly required both research and writing contributions for authorship, while two-thirds of the ethics codes defined only research as a mandatory contribution. In conclusion, the lack of and variety of authorship definitions in journals and professional organizations across scientific disciplines may be confusing for the researchers and lead to poor authorship practices. All stakeholders in research need to collaborate on building the environment where ethical behaviour in authorship is a norm.