Match!

Definition of authorship in social science journals

Published on Feb 1, 2019in Scientometrics2.77
· DOI :10.1007/s11192-018-2986-1
Yu-Wei Chang7
Estimated H-index: 7
(NTU: National Taiwan University)
Sources
Abstract
This study investigated authorship definitions listed on 1065 journal websites, representing seven social science disciplines. The results showed that 51.3% of the journals do not have an established authorship definition. Journals with high impact factors do not necessarily have an established authorship definition. Up to 81.1% of law journals lack authorship definitions, whereas the lowest proportion of journals having no authorship definitions was identified in the business domain. Authorship definitions were mostly accessible through hyperlinks embedded in the “instructions for authors” section of the journals’ websites. Only 3.8% of the journals directly listed authorship definitions in the instructions for authors section. A total of seven types of requirements were identified for authorship. The interdisciplinary influence of the authorship criteria developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has expanded to the social sciences. The current version of the ICMJE authorship criteria was abided by 32.9% of the journals. Authorship definitions stated by journals primarily originated from those set by editorial associations and other professional associations. However, inconsistent authorship definitions were noted between journals published by the same publishers. Journal websites should provide clear, complete, and updated authorship criteria to efficiently communicate essential information to authors.
  • References (83)
  • Citations (0)
📖 Papers frequently viewed together
48 Citations
22 Citations
78% of Scinapse members use related papers. After signing in, all features are FREE.
References83
Newest
#1Manorama TripathiH-Index: 3
#2Sushil KumarH-Index: 45
Last. Parveen BabbarH-Index: 4
view all 3 authors...
2 CitationsSource
#1Ivana Hebrang Grgić (University of Zagreb)H-Index: 6
#2Lorena Čačković (University of Zagreb)H-Index: 1
Purpose The paper aims to compare guidelines for authors in Croatian scholarly journals regarding six scientific field (according to Croatian classification) and to show representation of technical and ethical issues that are explained in guidelines for authors. Design/methodology/approach The aim of the research is to identify which elements are included in guidelines for authors in Croatian scholarly journals and to identify the differences regarding scientific fields. Fourteen parameters for ...
1 CitationsSource
#1Henry Sauermann (Georgia Institute of Technology)H-Index: 16
#2Carolin Haeussler (University of Passau)H-Index: 11
Most scientific research is performed by teams, and for a long time, observers have inferred individual team members’ contributions by interpreting author order on published articles. In response to increasing concerns about this approach, journals are adopting policies that require the disclosure of individual authors’ contributions. However, it is not clear whether and how these disclosures improve upon the conventional approach. Moreover, there is little evidence on how contribution statement...
20 CitationsSource
#1Adèle Paul-Hus (UdeM: Université de Montréal)H-Index: 6
#2Adrián A. Díaz-Faes (Polytechnic University of Valencia)H-Index: 5
Last. Vincent Larivière (UdeM: Université de Montréal)H-Index: 40
view all 6 authors...
For the past 50 years, acknowledgments have been studied as important paratextual traces of research practices, collaboration, and infrastructure in science. Since 2008, funding acknowledgments have been indexed by Web of Science, supporting large-scale analyses of research funding. Applying advanced linguistic methods as well as Correspondence Analysis to more than one million acknowledgments from research articles and reviews published in 2015, this paper aims to go beyond funding disclosure a...
4 CitationsSource
#1Adrián A. Díaz-Faes (Polytechnic University of Valencia)H-Index: 5
#2María Bordons (CSIC: Spanish National Research Council)H-Index: 27
Purpose Science is subject to a normative structure that includes how the contributions and interactions between scientists are rewarded. Authorship and citations have been the key elements within the reward system of science, whereas acknowledgements, despite being a well-established element in scholarly communication, have not received the same attention. The purpose of this paper is to put forward the bearing of acknowledgements in the humanities to bring to the foreground contributions and i...
3 CitationsSource
#1Timothy Kassis (MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)H-Index: 5
Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sough...
5 CitationsSource
#1Bruce Macfarlane (University of Southampton)H-Index: 20
The allocation of authorship credit in academic publication raises complex ethical issues but is comparatively under-researched, particularly in the social sciences. The paper analyses the results of research into attitudes to multiple authorship based on a survey questionnaire of academics working in education faculties in universities in Hong Kong. The results illustrate the way in which intellectual contribution is often overridden by considerations related to hierarchical power relations, no...
15 CitationsSource
1 CitationsSource
#1Elise Smith (RTP: Research Triangle Park)H-Index: 10
#2Zubin Master (Albany Medical College)H-Index: 20
ABSTRACTMisunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the impo...
13 CitationsSource
Collaborative writing in academic medicine gives rise to more richly informed scholarship, and yet challenging ethical issues surrounding authorship are commonly encountered. International guidelines on authorship help clarify whether individuals who have contributed to a completed scholarly work have been correctly included as authors, but these guidelines do not facilitate intentional and proactive authorship planning or decisions regarding authorship order. In this Commentary, the author pres...
8 CitationsSource
Cited By0
Newest
#1Vygintas Aliukonis (Vilnius University)
#2Margarita Poškutė (Vilnius University)
Last. Eugenijus Gefenas (Vilnius University)H-Index: 8
view all 3 authors...
Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the am...
Source