CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 50Academic integrity and plagiarismscientometrics and bibliometrics researchPublishing and Scholarly Communication

An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication

Open access
Hosseini, Mohammad, Lewis, Jonathan, Zwart, Hub, Gordijn, Bert·2022·Science and Engineering Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3PMC PMC9126105
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Accountability and credit are two sides of the same coin, and contributors cannot have one without the other.

    “Accountability and credit are two sides of the same coin, and contributors cannot have one without the other (Hosseini et al., 2022; Resnik, 1997; Smith, 2017).”

    From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Hosseini et al., 2022

    The “Attribution of Credit” and “Responsibility and Accountability” sections link recognition and accountability to identifiable contributions, and say authors should be accountable for their work. They do not establish the stronger claim that every contributor must have credit and accountability together; the paper distinguishes authorship credit from acknowledgement for different contributions. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 99

  1. Alberts B Promoting Scientific Standards Science 2010 327 5961 12 12 10.1126/science.1185983 20044544 · DOI
  2. Anson IG Moskovitz C Text recycling in STEM: A text-analytic study of recently published research articles Accountability in Research 2021 28 6 349 371 10.1080/08989621.2020.1850284 33180569 · DOI
  3. Azoulay P Small research teams ‘disrupt’ science more radically than large ones Nature 2019 566 7744 330 332 10.1038/d41586-019-00350-3 30783269 · DOI
  4. Baerlocher MO Newton M Gautam T Tomlinson G Detsky AS The meaning of author order in medical research Journal of Investigative Medicine 2007 55 4 174 180 10.2310/6650.2007.06044 17651671 · DOI
  5. Bales S Hubbard DE vanDuinkerken W Sare L Olivarez J The use of departmental journal lists in promotion and tenure decisions at American research universities The Journal of Academic Librarianship 2019 45 2 153 161 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.005 · DOI
  6. Bebeau MJ Monson V Authorship and publication practices in the social sciences: historical reflections on current practices Science and Engineering Ethics 2011 17 2 365 388 10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4 21647594 · DOI
  7. Biagioli M The science studies reader 1999 Routledge
  8. Biagioli M Biagioli M Galison P Rights or rewards? Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in Science 2003 London Routledge 253 280
  9. Biagioli M Galison P Biagioli M Galison P Introduction Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in Science 2003 London Routledge 1 9
  10. Birnholtz J When Authorship Isn’t Enough: Lessons from CERN on the Implications of Formal and Informal Credit Attribution Mechanisms in Collaborative Research The Journal of Electronic Publishing 2008 10.3998/3336451.0011.105 · DOI
  11. Borenstein J Shamoo AE Rethinking Authorship in the Era of Collaborative Research Accountability in Research 2015 22 5 267 283 10.1080/08989621.2014.968277 25928178 · DOI
  12. Bornmann L Mutz R Neuhaus C Daniel H-D Citation counts for research evaluation: Standards of good practice for analyzing bibliometric data and presenting and interpreting results Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 2008 8 1 93 102 10.3354/esep00084 · DOI
  13. Brand A Allen L Altman M Hlava M Scott J Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit Learned Publishing 2015 28 2 151 155 10.1087/20150211 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Bruton SV Medlin M Brown M Sacco DF Personal motivations and systemic incentives: Scientists on questionable research practices Science and Engineering Ethics 2020 26 3 1531 1547 10.1007/s11948-020-00182-9 31981051 · DOI
  15. Bozeman B Youtie J Trouble in paradise: Problems in academic research co-authoring Science and Engineering Ethics 2016 22 6 1717 1743 10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5 26573303 · DOI
  16. Cabral IE Egry EY Barbosa DA Integrity and ethics in research and scientific communication: Issues for Nursing considerations Revista Da Escola De Enfermagem Da USP 2015 49 5 712 713 10.1590/S0080-623420150000500001 26516738 · DOI
  17. Charlton BG Figureheads, ghost-writers and pseudonymous quant bloggers: The recent evolution of authorship in science publishing Medical Hypotheses 2008 71 4 475 480 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.06.023 18755552 · DOI
  18. Claxton LD Scientific authorship: Part 1. A window into scientific fraud? Mutation Research/reviews in Mutation Research 2005 589 1 17 30 10.1016/j.mrrev.2004.07.003 15652224 · DOI
  19. Conte ML Maat SL Omary MB Increased co-first authorships in biomedical and clinical publications: A call for recognition The FASEB Journal 2013 27 10 3902 3904 10.1096/fj.13-235630 23839935 · DOI
  20. Costas R van Leeuwen TN Bordons M Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: Effects of different calculation methods Scientometrics 2010 82 3 517 537 10.1007/s11192-010-0187-7 20234766 PMC2830585 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Cronin B Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2001 52 7 558 569 10.1002/asi.1097 · DOI · Paper page
  22. Desmond H Dierickx K Research integrity codes of conduct in Europe: Understanding the divergences Bioethics 2021 10.1111/bioe.12851 33550603 · DOI
  23. Didegah, F. (2014). Factors associating with the future citation impact of published articles: A statistical modelling approach. [PhD Thesis-University of Wolverhampton]. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/20533984.pdf. Retrieved 05 February 2021.
  24. Douglas H Cartwright N Montuschi E Values in social science Philosophy of social science: A new introduction 2014 Oxford Oxford University Press 162 182
  25. Drenth JPH Authorship inflation: A trend reversed The Lancet 1995 345 8959 1242 1243 10.5555/uri:pii:S0140673695920269 7605461 · DOI
  26. Du J Tang X Perceptions of author order versus contribution among researchers with different professional ranks and the potential of harmonic counts for encouraging ethical co-authorship practices Scientometrics 2013 96 1 277 295 10.1007/s11192-012-0905-4 · DOI
  27. Eisenberg RL Ngo LH Heidinger BH Bankier AA Honorary Authorship in Radiologic Research Articles: Assessment of Pattern and Longitudinal Evolution Academic Radiology 2018 25 11 1451 1456 10.1016/j.acra.2018.02.023 29555566 · DOI
  28. Fanelli D Larivière V Researchers’ Individual Publication Rate Has Not Increased in a Century PLoS ONE 2016 11 3 e0149504 10.1371/journal.pone.0149504 26960191 PMC4784736 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Feng S Kirkley A Mixing Patterns in Interdisciplinary Co-Authorship Networks at Multiple Scales Scientific Reports 2020 10.1038/s41598-020-64351-3 PMC7206138 32382037 · DOI
  30. Fong EA Wilhite AW Authorship and citation manipulation in academic research PLoS ONE 2017 12 12 e0187394 10.1371/journal.pone.0187394 29211744 PMC5718422 · DOI
  31. Fox CW Paine CET Sauterey B Citations increase with manuscript length, author number, and references cited in ecology journals Ecology and Evolution 2016 6 21 7717 7726 10.1002/ece3.2505 30128123 PMC6093155 · DOI
  32. Garcia CC Martrucelli CRN de Rossilho M M. F., & Denardin, O. V. P. Authorship for scientific papers: The new challenges Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2010 25 4 559 567 10.1590/S0102-76382010000400021 21340387 · DOI
  33. Glänzel W Thijs B Does co-authorship inflate the share of self-citations? Scientometrics 2004 61 3 395 404 10.1023/B:SCIE.0000045117.13348.b1 · DOI
  34. Greenland P Fontanarosa PB Ending Honorary Authorship Science 2012 337 6098 1019 1019 10.1126/science.1224988 22936744 · DOI
  35. Gross AG Harmon JE Reidy MS Communicating science: The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present 2002 Oxford Oxford University Press
  36. Habermas J Knowledge and human interests 1971 Boston Beacon Press
  37. Habermas, J. (1996). The Habermas reader (W. Outhwaite, Ed.). Polity Press.
  38. Hammer MJ Miaskowski C Authorship Ethics in the Era of Team Science Oncology Nursing Forum 2017 44 6 655 657 10.1188/17.ONF.655-657 29052665 · DOI
  39. Hermerén G Zwart H Marušic A Fanelli D Mutual learning exercise (MLE) on research integrity: Final report European Commission 2019 10.2777/72096 · DOI
  40. Holcombe AO Contributorship, not authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What Publications 2019 7 3 48 10.3390/publications7030048 · DOI
  41. Holden, C. (2006, February 10). Panel Clears Schatten of Misconduct. Science | AAAS. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2006/02/panel-clears-schatten-misconduct
  42. Hosseini M Bruton SV A qualitative study of Equal Co-First Authorship Accountability in Research 2020 27 8 496 520 10.1080/08989621.2020.1776122 32475162 · DOI
  43. Hosseini M Consoli L Zwart H van den Hoven MA Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors Science and Engineering Ethics 2020 26 2 597 617 10.1007/s11948-019-00106-2 31016482 PMC7089890 · DOI
  44. Hosseini M Lewis J The norms of authorship credit: Challenging the definition of authorship in The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity Accountability in Research 2020 27 2 80 98 10.1080/08989621.2020.1721288 31976754 · DOI
  45. Huang M-H Chang Y-W Multi-institutional authorship in genetics and high-energy physics Physica a: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications 2018 505 549 558 10.1016/j.physa.2018.03.091 · DOI
  46. Institute of Medicine. (1993). Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process: Volume II. The National Academies Press. 25144068
  47. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (2019). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. http://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf Retrieved 27 January 2021. 25558501
  48. IWCSA Report. (2012). Report on the International Workshop on Contributorship and Scholarly Attribution. http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/attribution_workshop. Retrieved 27 January 2021.
  49. Kapoor N Abola MV Jena AB Smith SE Trends in Authorship Patterns in High-Impact Radiology Publications, 1980–2013 Academic Radiology 2015 22 12 1587 1591 10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.013 26419923 · DOI
  50. Kastor JA Authorship and the Darsee case International Journal of Cardiology 1984 5 1 7 9 10.1016/0167-5273(84)90050-0 6693211 · DOI
  51. Kornhaber RA McLean LM Baber RJ Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: An integrative review International Journal of Nanomedicine 2015 10 1 4837 4846 10.2147/IJN.S87585 26257520 PMC4525802 · DOI
  52. Kremenak N Authorship of the Research Report: Perils and Responsibilities Journal of Prosthodontics-Implant Esthetic and Reconstructive Dentistry 2010 19 5 420 421 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00618.x · DOI
  53. Kumar S Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations Publications 2018 6 3 37 10.3390/publications6030037 · DOI
  54. Larivière V Desrochers N Macaluso B Mongeon P Paul-Hus A Sugimoto CR Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production Social Studies of Science 2016 46 3 417 435 10.1177/0306312716650046 28948891 · DOI
  55. Larivière V Gingras Y Sugimoto CR Tsou A Team size matters: Collaboration and scientific impact since 1900 Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 2015 66 7 1323 1332 10.1002/asi.23266 · DOI · Paper page
  56. Leash E Is It Time for a New Approach to Authorship? Journal of Dental Research 1997 76 3 724 727 10.1177/00220345970760030101 9109819 · DOI
  57. Li D Cornelis G Defining and Handling Research Misconduct: A Comparison Between Chinese and European Institutional Policies Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 2020 15 4 302 319 10.1177/1556264620927628 32613889 · DOI
  58. Lewis J Iphofen R Experimental Design: Ethics, Integrity and the Scientific Method Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity 2020 Berlin Springer 459 474
  59. Lissoni F Montobbio F Guest Authors or Ghost Inventors? Inventorship and Authorship Attribution in Academic Science Evaluation Review 2015 39 1 19 45 10.1177/0193841X13517234 24408905 · DOI
  60. Louis KS Holdsworth JM Anderson MS Campbell EG Everyday Ethics in Research: Translating Authorship Guidelines into Practice in the Bench Sciences The Journal of Higher Education 2008 79 1 88 112 10.1080/00221546.2008.11772087 · DOI
  61. Ludvigsson J Lefebvre P Nerup J It is time to restore Rules for Authorship of scientific publications Pediatric Diabetes 2018 19 3 586 10.1111/pedi.12572 28994232 · DOI
  62. Logunov DY Dolzhikova IV Shcheblyakov DV Tukhvatulin AI Zubkova OV Dzharullaeva AS Kovyrshina AV Lubenets NL Grousova DM Erokhova AS Botikov AG Izhaeva FM Popova O Ozharovskaya TA Esmagambetov IB Favorskaya IA Zrelkin DI Voronina DV Shcherbinin DN Gintsburg AL Safety and efficacy of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine: An interim analysis of a randomised controlled phase 3 trial in Russia The Lancet 2021 397 10275 671 681 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00234-8 PMC7852454 33545094 · DOI · Paper page
  63. McKiernan EC Schimanski LA Muñoz Nieves C Matthias L Niles MT Alperin JP Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations eLife 2019 8 e47338 10.7554/eLife.47338 31364991 PMC6668985 · DOI
  64. Merton RK The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations 1973 Chicago University of Chicago Press
  65. Moffatt B Orphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship Accountability in Research 2013 20 2 59 71 10.1080/08989621.2013.767115 23432769 · DOI
  66. Moher D Naudet F Cristea IA Miedema F Ioannidis JPA Goodman SN Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure PLOS Biology 2018 16 3 e2004089 10.1371/journal.pbio.2004089 29596415 PMC5892914 · DOI · Paper page
  67. Mongeon P Smith E Joyal B Larivière V The rise of the middle author: Investigating collaboration and division of labor in biomedical research using partial alphabetical authorship PLoS ONE 2017 12 9 e0184601 10.1371/journal.pone.0184601 28910344 PMC5599011 · DOI
  68. Noorden RV Chawla DS Hundreds of extreme self-citing scientists revealed in new database Nature 2019 572 7771 578 579 10.1038/d41586-019-02479-7 31455906 · DOI
  69. Nylenna M Fagerbakk F Kierulf P Authorship: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers BMC Medical Ethics 2014 15 1 53 10.1186/1472-6939-15-53 24989359 PMC4118778 · DOI
  70. O’Connell A Harp G Implementing CRediT: An Interview with Cell Press’s Gabriel Harp Science Editor 2017 39 2 55 56
  71. Oliver SK Fergus CE Skaff NK Wagner T Tan P-N Cheruvelil KS Soranno PA Strategies for effective collaborative manuscript development in interdisciplinary science teams Ecosphere 2018 9 4 e02206 10.1002/ecs2.2206 · DOI
  72. Osório A Bornmann L On the disruptive power of small-teams research Scientometrics 2021 126 1 117 133 10.1007/s11192-020-03756-3 · DOI
  73. Papatheodorou SI Trikalinos TA Ioannidis JPA Inflated numbers of authors over time have not been just due to increasing research complexity Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008 61 6 546 551 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.07.017 18471658 · DOI
  74. Radder H Radder H Mertonian values, scientific norms, and the commodification of academic research The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university 2010 Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Press 231 258
  75. Rennie D Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001 Muscle and Nerve 2001 24 10 1274 1277 10.1002/mus.1144 11562905 · DOI
  76. Rennie D Flanagin A Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin JAMA 1994 271 6 469 471 10.1001/jama.271.6.469 8295324 · DOI
  77. Resnik DB A Proposal for a New System of Credit Allocation in Science Science and Engineering Ethics 1997 3 3 237 243 10.1007/s11948-997-0023-5 · DOI · Paper page
  78. Resnik DB The Price of Truth: How Money Affects the Norms of Science 2007 Oxford Oxford University Press
  79. Resnik DB Radder H Financial interests and the norms of academic science The commodification of academic research: Science and the modern university 2010 Pittsburgh University of Pittsburgh Press 65 89
  80. Resnik DB Master Z Authorship policies of bioethics journals Journal of Medical Ethics 2011 37 7 424 428 10.1136/jme.2010.040675 21266387 PMC3954630 · DOI
  81. Shamoo AE Resnik DB Responsible Conduct of Research (Third Edition) 2015 Oxford Oxford University Press
  82. Skene L Undertaking Research in Other Countries: National Ethico-Legal Barometers and International Ethical Consensus Statements PLOS Medicine 2007 4 2 e10 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040010 17326700 PMC1808077 · DOI
  83. Smith E Master Z Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications Accountability in Research 2017 24 4 243 267 10.1080/08989621.2017.1287567 28128975 · DOI
  84. Smolčić VŠ Salami publication: Definitions and examples Biochemia Medica 2013 23 3 237 241 10.11613/BM.2013.030 24266293 PMC3900084 · DOI
  85. Strange K Authorship: Why not just toss a coin? American Journal of Physiology-Cell Physiology 2008 295 3 C567 C575 10.1152/ajpcell.00208.2008 18776156 PMC2544445 · DOI
  86. Syed S Tran DQ Kemper AR Geme JWS Lantos JD Authorship Concerns and Who Truly Owns a Research Idea? Pediatrics 2015 136 5 969 973 10.1542/peds.2015-1421 26459651 PMC4621797 · DOI
  87. Tilak, G., Prasad, V., & Jena, A. B. (2015). Authorship Inflation in Medical Publications. Inquiry: A Journal of Medical Care Organization, Provision and Financing, 52(1), 1–4. 10.1177/0046958015598311 PMC4943864 26228035 · DOI
  88. Todorov T The poetics of prose 1977 Ithaca Cornell University Press
  89. Van Raan AFJ Fatal attraction: Conceptual and methodological problems in the ranking of universities by bibliometric methods Scientometrics 2005 62 1 133 143 10.1007/s11192-005-0008-6 · DOI
  90. Vasconcelos SMR Roig M Prior Publication and Redundancy in Contemporary Science: Are Authors and Editors at the Crossroads? Science and Engineering Ethics 2015 21 5 1367 1378 10.1007/s11948-014-9599-8 25341850 · DOI
  91. Vasilevsky NA Hosseini M Teplitzky S Ilik V Mohammadi E Schneider J Kern B Colomb J Edmunds SC Gutzman K Himmelstein DS White M Smith B O’Keefe L Haendel M Holmes KL Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles Accountability in Research 2021 28 1 23 43 10.1080/08989621.2020.1779591 32602379 PMC7736357 · DOI
  92. Wallace ML Larivière V Gingras Y A small world of citations? The influence of collaboration networks on citation practices PLoS ONE 2012 7 3 e33339 10.1371/journal.pone.0033339 22413016 PMC3296690 · DOI
  93. Weeks WB Wallace AE Kimberly BCS Changes in authorship patterns in prestigious US medical journals Social Science & Medicine 2004 59 9 1949 1954 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.02.029 15312928 · DOI
  94. Welker JA McCue JD Authorship versus “Credit” for Participation in Research: A Case Study of Potential Ethical Dilemmas Created by Technical Tools Used by Researchers and Claims for Authorship by Their Creators Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA 2007 14 1 16 18 10.1197/jamia.M2212 17068347 PMC2215071 · DOI
  95. Yeo-Teh NSL Tang BL A research misconduct severity matrix that could serve to harmonize adjudication of findings Accountability in Research 2021 10.1080/08989621.2021.1917398 33851879 · DOI
  96. Youtie J Bozeman B Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights Scientometrics 2014 101 2 953 962 10.1007/s11192-014-1391-7 · DOI
  97. Zhang L Sun B Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z Chen L Huang Y Interdisciplinarity and collaboration: On the relationship between disciplinary diversity in departmental affiliations and reference lists Scientometrics 2018 117 1 271 291 10.1007/s11192-018-2853-0 · DOI
  98. Zietman AL The Ethics of Scientific Publishing: Black, White, and “Fifty Shades of Gray” International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics 2017 99 2 275 279 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2017.06.009 28871970 · DOI
  99. Zwart H Challenges of Macro-ethics: Bioethics and the Transformation of Knowledge Production Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2008 5 4 283 293 10.1007/s11673-008-9110-9 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hosseini, M., Lewis, J., Zwart, H., & Gordijn, B.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • Erasmus University Rotterdam (NL)
  • Dublin City University (IE)
Corresponding author
Zwart, Hub
ORCID
Venue
Science and Engineering Ethics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-05-23
Volume
28
Issue
3
Pages
25-25
ISSN
  • 1353-3452 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5546
DOI
10.1007/s11948-021-00352-3
PMC
PMC9126105
OpenAlex
W4281383027
Cited by
50
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 7
FWCI
12.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Science and Engineering Ethics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (741782)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
Keywords
authorship ethics, honorary authorship, guest authorship, CRediT taxonomy, ICMJE authorship criteria, research collaboration, publication incentives, authorship criteria
MeSH terms
Authorship, Confidentiality, Humans, Publishing, Research Personnel

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review