You are here:
SCIENTIFIC AUTHORSHIP, PART I: A WINDOW INOT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD SCIENTIFIC AUTHORSHIP, PART II: HISTORY, REOCCURRING ISSUES, PRACTICES, AND GUIDELINES (SEE COMMENTS)
Citation:
Claxton, L D. SCIENTIFIC AUTHORSHIP, PART I: A WINDOW INOT SCIENTIFIC FRAUD SCIENTIFIC AUTHORSHIP, PART II: HISTORY, REOCCURRING ISSUES, PRACTICES, AND GUIDELINES (SEE COMMENTS). MUTATION RESEARCH. Elsevier Science BV, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 589(1):17-30; 31-45, (2005).
Description:
Scientific Authorship: History, Reoccurring Issues, Practices, and Guidelines
Introduction
Often, the most challenging aspect of being a scientist is dealing with the intricacies of publishing one's research and knowledge. One must do much more than just accurately record the results and methods used in accomplishing these results. The scientist is expected to place the research in a proper context, add new knowledge to a scientific discipline, use proper grammar and style, and accomplish these tasks so that the paper will be published in a journal of choice [1-4]. In today's world, research is usually a team effort, and the size of the teams grows with the complexity of the research [5]. Therefore, a scientist also must deal with the multi-participant issues such as: allocation of roles and authorship, trust between participants, resolving publication conflicts, and guarding against any perception or actuality of improper behavior [5,6].
Scientists think about these issues. As one mentors graduate students and postdoctoral fellows (individually and through career-development courses), questions and concerns about publication issues arise. Team leaders and managers must anticipate solutions for and resolve problems about authorship. Scientists have concern about the repercussions that scientists endure when someone abuses the trusts of their fellow scientists through incompetent science, fraud, or misconduct.
This paper is offered not because there is a crisis in ethical behavior but because an informed scientific community can better meet the challenges surrounding authorship issues. Although there may be no crisis in ethical behavior, the problems surrounding scientific authorship continue to grow because of the increase in numbers of scientists, the complexity of modern science, the increase in competition for support and recognition, and the influence of entrepreneurial endeavors. Most papers, editorials, commentaries, and reports dealing with authorship arise out of the need of editors and others to change practices in order to diminish abuses (fraudulent papers, papers with improper attribution of authorship, etc.) [7]. Historically, most articles, comments, and editorials dealing with authorship issues were published in medical journals (e.g., BMJ, JAMA, and Lancet) and broadly based journals (e.g., Science and Nature). In addition, most references deal with or emerge from some type of abuse or problem, and they are written by those involved (e.g., editors) or by those recommending specific changes or viewpoints.