CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Academic integrity and plagiarismPublishing and Scholarly Communicationscientometrics and bibliometrics research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 244 of the 246 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

Open access
Hosseini, Mohammad, Gordijn, Bert·2020·Accountability in Research
DOI 10.1080/08989621.2020.1750957
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/08989621.2020.1750957

Cites

244 of 244 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Items 201–244 of 244

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Agoramoorthy, G. 2014. “Truthfulness: The Ultimate Ethics in Scientific Writing.” Current Science 107 (11): 1777–1778.
  2. Andersen, J. P., J. W. Schneider, and M. W. Nielsen. 2016. “Mapping the Author Gender-Distribution of Disease-Specific Medical Research.” In 21st International Conference On Science And Technology Indicators (STI 2016), Edited by I. Rafols, J. Molas Gallart, E. CastroMartinez, and R. Woolley, 852–862. CAMINO VERA S-N, Valencia, Spain: Univ Politecnica Valencia.
  3. Garfield, E. 1982. “More On The Ethics Of Scientific Publication - Abuses Of Authorship Attribution And Citation Amnesia Undermine The Reward System Of Science..” Current Contents: Social and Behavioral Sciences 30 (10): 5–10.
  4. Interrante, L. V., and E. Reichmanis. 2005. “Ethics of Scientific Publication.” Chemical & Engineering News 83 (26): 4–5.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 39

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hosseini, M., & Gordijn, B.
Affiliations
Dublin City University (IE)
Corresponding author
Hosseini, Mohammad
ORCID
Venue
Accountability in Research
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2020-04-16
Volume
27
Issue
5
Pages
284-324
ISSN
  • 0898-9621 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-5815
DOI
10.1080/08989621.2020.1750957
OpenAlex
W3014226787
Cited by
38
References
246
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 4
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
  • Accountability in Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Dublin City University Open Access Institutional Repository (Dublin City University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Arrow@dit (Dublin Institute of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • European Commission (741782)
  • University of Hong Kong
  • Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (741782)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Academic integrity and plagiarism
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
Keywords
scientific authorship, research ethics, authorship norms, attribution, authorship order, publication ethics, citation practices, originality, codes of conduct, research bias
MeSH terms
Authorship, Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Punishment, Plagiarism, Scientific Misconduct, Guidelines as Topic, Ethics, Research

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