A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.
A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0023477
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Jerončić A
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Marušić A;Bošnjak L;Jerončić A
本系统综述的目的是评估作者身份问题的证据，并综合所有研究领域的作者身份研究。我们检索了书目数据库，以确定来自所有学术领域的关于作者身份不同方面的描述实证定量或定性研究的文章。搜索仅限于原创文章和评论。最终样本包括123篇文章，报告了118项研究的结果。大多数研究来自生物医学和健康研究领域以及社会科学。研究设计通常是调查（53%）或描述性研究（27%）；只有2项研究采用随机设计。我们确定了所有研究学科共有的4个一般主题：作者身份认知、定义和实践、作者署名的定义顺序、作者身份的道德和不道德行为，以及与学生/非研究人员与导师合作相关的作者身份问题。在14项调查研究中，一项荟萃分析显示，29% （95% CI 24%至35%）的研究人员报告了自己或他人滥用作者身份的经历。美国和英国以外的研究人员更常报告作者滥用：在法国、南非、印度和孟加拉国的4项研究中，55% (95% CI为45%至64%)，而在美国/英国或国际期刊环境中，这一比例为23% （95% CI为18%至28%）。作者身份问题的普遍存在可能会对研究过程的完整性产生严重影响，就像更严重的研究不端行为一样。有必要进行更严格的方法研究，以了解跨研究学科的出版信用分配。
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
Apgar, DH;Congress, E
通讯作者：
Congress, E
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Bebeau, Muriel J.;Monson, Verna
通讯作者：
Monson, Verna
DOI：
10.2106/00004623-200308000-00024
发表时间：
2003-08-01
影响因子：
5.3
作者：
Bhandari, M;Einhorn, TA;Heckman, JD
通讯作者：
Heckman, JD
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Borenstein, Jason
通讯作者：
Borenstein, Jason
影响因子：
2.9
作者：
Buchkowsky, SS;Jewesson, PJ
通讯作者：
Jewesson, PJ