A Theoretical Foundation for the Ethical Distribution of Authorship in Multidisciplinary Publications
Abstract
In academia, authorship on publications confers merit as well as responsibility. The respective disciplines adhere to their "typical" authorship practices: individuals may be named in alphabetical order (e.g., in economics, mathematics), ranked in decreasing level of contribution (e.g., biomedical sciences), or the leadership role may be listed last (e.g., laboratory sciences). However, there is no specific, generally accepted guidance regarding authorship distribution in multidisciplinary teams, something that can lead to significant tensions and even conflict. Using Scanlon's contractualism as a basis, I propose a conceptual foundation for the ethical distribution of authorship in multidisciplinary teams; it features four relevant principles: desert, just recognition, transparency, and collegiality. These principles can serve in the development of a practical framework to support ethical and nonarbitrary authorship distribution, which hopefully would help reduce confusion and conflict, promote agreement, and contribute to synergy in multidisciplinary collaborative research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 Smith, 2017
Authorship is a form of social capital that is awarded, protected, and exchanged in human relationships.
“Authorship, in this sense, is a form of social capital that is awarded, protected, and exchanged in human relationships (Smith, 2017).”
From The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts (2023) · cites this paper as Smith, 2017
Cites
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147 · cited 5× · see citing works
“Conversely, “ghost” authorship—the omission of an individual who has contributed substantially to a study—has also been discussed as an important ethical issue in the authorship literature KENNEDY INSTITUTE OF ETHICS JOURNAL • SEPTEMBER 2017 [ 376 ] (Anstey 2014; Matías-Guiu and García-Ramos 2011; Mowatt et al. 2002),…”
InfluentialIntended and unintended consequences of a publish‐or‐perish culture: A worldwide survey
van Dalen, H. P., & Henkens, K. (2012) · Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology · doi:10.1002/asi.22636 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences
Sismondo, S. (2009) · Social Studies of Science · doi:10.1177/0306312708101047 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The ethics of disclosing the use of artificial intelligence tools in writing scholarly manuscripts
Hosseini, M., Resnik, D. B., & Holmes, K. (2023) · Research Ethics · doi:10.1177/17470161231180449 · Cited by 253 · see citing works
- Authors
- Smith, E.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Smith, Elise
- ORCID
- Smith, Elise
- Venue
- Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal
- Publisher
- Project MUSE
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 371-411
- ISSN
- 1054-6863 (ISSN-L)
- 1086-3249
- OpenAlex
- W2741089746
- Cited by
- 23
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 7.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Kennedy Institute of Ethics journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) (submittedVersion)
- Papyrus : Institutional Repository (Université de Montréal) (submittedVersion)
- 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
- author distribution, multidisciplinary research teams, desert, transparency, collegiality, research ethics, research collaboration, authorship order
- MeSH terms
- Authorship, Interprofessional Relations, Truth Disclosure, Ethical Theory, Interdisciplinary Communication, Biomedical 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
