Presentation on ethics of authorship distribution in research.

1. National Institutes of Health • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Elise Smith, Ph.D., Post-doctoral Fellow
In collaboration with:
Bryn Williams-Jones, Zubin Master, Vincent Larivière, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Adèle Paul-Hus, 1Min Shi,
Elena Diller, Katie Caudle, David B. Resnik
Funding: NIH and Quebec Funding Agency in Health Science
03/01/2019
When Distribution of Scientific
Authorship Becomes a
“Blood Sport”

2. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Blood Sport
Source: 1. Council of Science Editors (CSE). CSE Task Force on Authorship Draft White Paper
Available from: http://www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3331
2. Merriam Webster Dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood%20sport;
Scientific Authorship

3. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Leung W, Shaffer CD, Reed LK, Smith ST, Barshop W, Dirkes W, et al. Drosophila Muller F Elements
Maintain a Distinct Set of Genomic Properties Over 40 Million Years of Evolution. G3
GenesGenomesGenetics. 2015 Mar 4;g3.114.015966.
Who is responsible?

4. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Who deserves credit?
Authorship
Success
Funding
Research
possibilities
• Systemic justice

5. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Literature on Authorship
• Gift, ghost, and honorary authorship.
• Rise in qualitative studies in the last 5 years
• Surveys:
Martinson(2005)
USA 10% unfair authorship (N=3,247)
Okonta (2014)
Nigeria 37% disagreement (N=132)
Nylenna (2014)
Norway 58% disagreement (N=654)
The are no generalizable studies that go beyond the
analysis of rates of authorship issues.

6. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
1. Analyze context related to authorship
disagreements
2. Evaluate the relationship between authorship
disagreements and misbehavior
3. Explore how researchers perceive such issues
Objectives
Factors
Predictors
Disagreement Misbehavior

7. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Methodology
Arts and
Humanities
3%
Medical
Sciences
31%
Natural
Sciences and
Engineering
47%
Social
Sciences
19%
• Developed and pretested online survey tool.
• Sample (N=6,697) researchers who
published in collaborative teams
– Gender
• 35% Women
• 63% Men
• 0.97% Other/No answer
• Analysis:
– Descriptive and multivariate logistic
regression
– Qualitative content analysis

8. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Disagreements Regarding What?
•46.6% disagreements regarding naming
•37.9% disagreements regarding ordering

9. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Factors Contributed to Naming Disagreements
18.10%
67.70%
38.30%
21%
25.20%
7.80%
27.10%
7.30%
Differing disciplinary practices
Differing ways of valuing or measuring the
importance of contribution
Confusion and lack of clarity
Differing values
Differing ethics
Differences between the team's authorship
practices and those of the journal
Lack of discussion and agreement within the team
Other

10. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Contextualizing Naming Disagreements

11. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Relationship Between Disagreement and
Misbehavior
24.6%
16.4%
8.3%
6.4%
3.3%
37.0%
3.5%
45.6%
7.0%
4.3%
1.8%
1.1%
0.8%
40.1%
4.1%
50.5%
Being hostile towards colleagues
Undermining the work of colleagues during meetings/talks
Cutting corners on research to compete with a colleague
Sabotaging someone's research
Producing fraudulent research to compete
Limiting further collaboration
Other
No specific behavior has been observed
Observed: percentage of selected N=6673 Engaged: percentage of selected N=2463

12. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
“Do you have any final comments or remarks
regarding the fair distribution of authorship in
team research?”
N=1408
Factors and
predictors
• gender
• discipline
Disagreement
• naming
• ordering
Misbehavior
• retaliatory behavior
• limiting collaboration

13. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Need
• Rank
• Collegiality
• Transparency
• Justice, fairness,
or equality
• Unethical
practices or
questionable
practices
• Disagreement
between people
or groups
Disagreements
Unethical
practices or
questionable
behavior
External
influences
regarding
authorship
Values
regarding
authorship
“Do you have any final comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in team research?”
N=1408

14. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Ethical Issues Regarding Authorship
Unethical Ethical
• Discrimination, sexism, racism
• Bullying, sabotage, harassment
• Free–riding based on network and connections
• “Imitate” compliance
• Bargaining and dealing for professional advancement
• Bias, stereotyping, deceit
• Transparency
• Collegiality
• Fairness

15. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
• Some disagreements are managed in a collegial fashion.
• Other qualifications for disagreements:
• blood sport
• horror stories
• petty issue
• pissing context
• delicate issue
• generational need for instant and absolute gratification
Disagreements according to researchers

16. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
From individual wellbeing to generalized fear
• Disagreements result in hurt feelings, individual disdain,
hostility, fear, hopelessness and irrational behavior.
• Some researchers will try to prevent all disagreements
by limiting collaborations to “like-minded” individuals.
Sadly, when multiple authors/researchers are selected, we
tend to pick folks who agree with us (and that makes the
research quite dull). But who will select researchers who
will disagree with you, even though the research might
hold more promise?”

17. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Factors Disagreement Misbehavior
Individual
wellbeing
Gifted
researchers
quitting science
Fear of
disagreements
Reduced
innovation
Putting the pieces together…

18. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
What can be done?
• Develop management strategies rooted not only into
systemic justice but also in relational and interactional
justice.
• Teach researchers about the detrimental effect of
disagreements using multifaceted approach including
empirical research results.
• Accept that there may not be a “fair” solution to
authorship and that trade-offs will be necessary.
• Other support may be necessary if power dynamics
impede open dialogue.

19. National Institutes of Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Conclusion
• Research innovation has prevailed by testing,
questioning and freely disagreeing.
• Perhaps science is and should remain a “blood sport”
regarding ideas, innovation and rigor.
• The goal then should be to preserve respect for
individual wellbeing and team cohesion throughout this
process.