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)
Cite
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 (82)
  • Citations (0)
Cite
References82
Newest
Published on Jun 10, 2018in Current Science0.76
Manorama Tripathi3
Estimated H-index: 3
,
Sunil Kumar3
Estimated H-index: 3
,
Parveen Babbar4
Estimated H-index: 4
Published on Dec 15, 2017
Ivana Hebrang Grgić5
Estimated H-index: 5
(University of Zagreb),
Lorena Čačković1
Estimated H-index: 1
(University of Zagreb)
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 ...
Published on Nov 1, 2017in Science Advances
Henry Sauermann14
Estimated H-index: 14
(Georgia Institute of Technology),
Carolin Haeussler10
Estimated H-index: 10
(University of Passau)
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...
Published on Oct 4, 2017in PLOS ONE2.78
Adèle Paul-Hus6
Estimated H-index: 6
(UdeM: Université de Montréal),
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes4
Estimated H-index: 4
(Polytechnic University of Valencia)
+ 3 AuthorsVincent Larivière38
Estimated H-index: 38
(UdeM: Université de Montréal)
Adele Paul-Hus was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Joseph-Armand Bombardier CGS Doctoral Scholarships. Nadine Desrochers and Vincent Lariviere acknowledge the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada: Insight Development Grant [grant number 430-2014-0617]. Rodrigo Costas acknowledges a grant by Department of Science and Technology, Republic of South Africa, Centre of Excellence in Scientometrics and STI Policy (SciSTIP).
Published on Sep 18, 2017
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes4
Estimated H-index: 4
(Polytechnic University of Valencia),
María Bordons22
Estimated H-index: 22
(CSIC: Spanish National Research Council)
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...
Published on 2017in PLOS ONE2.78
Timothy Kassis5
Estimated H-index: 5
(MIT: Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
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...
Published on Jul 3, 2017in Studies in Higher Education2.85
Bruce Macfarlane20
Estimated H-index: 20
(University of Southampton)
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...
Published on May 19, 2017in Accountability in Research
Elise Smith9
Estimated H-index: 9
(RTP: Research Triangle Park),
Zubin Master20
Estimated H-index: 20
(Albany Medical College)
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...
Published on Feb 1, 2017in Journal of Informetrics3.88
Mohammad Tariqur Rahman9
Estimated H-index: 9
(UM: University of Malaya),
Joe Mac Regenstein7
Estimated H-index: 7
(Cornell University)
+ 1 AuthorsNazmul Haque8
Estimated H-index: 8
(UM: University of Malaya)
Measuring the contribution of each author of a multi-author paper has been a long standing concern. As a possible solution to this, we propose a list of intellectual activities and logistic support activities that might be involved in the production of a research paper. We then develop a quantitative approach to estimate an author’s relative intellectual contribution to a published work. An author’s relative intellectual contribution is calculated as the percent contribution of an author to each...
Cited By0
Newest
View next paperAuthorship in a small medical journal: A study of contributorship statements by corresponding authors