Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Author:

Johann DavidORCID

Abstract

AbstractRelying on data collected by the Zurich Survey of Academics (ZSoA), a unique representative online survey among academics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), this paper replicates Johann and Mayer's (Minerva 57(2):175–196, 2019) analysis of researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship and expands their scope. The primary goals of the study at hand are to learn more about (a) country differences in perceptions of scientific authorship, as well as (b) the influence of perceived publication pressure on authorship perceptions. The results indicate that academics in Switzerland interpret scientific authorship more leniently than their colleagues in Germany and Austria. The findings further indicate that, as perceived pressure to publish increases, researchers are more likely to belong to a group of academics who hold the view that any type of contribution/task justifies co-authorship, including even those contributions/tasks that do not justify co-authorship according to most authorship guidelines. In summary, the present study suggests that action is required to harmonize regulations for scientific authorship and to improve the research culture.

Funder

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Management of Technology and Innovation,Health Policy,Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)

Reference76 articles.

1. Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. Accessed on April 13, 2020, https://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12_0.pdf.

2. Ambrasat, J., Heger, C., & Rucker, A. (2020). Wissenschaftsbefragung 2019/20—Methoden und Fragebogen. German Centre for Higher Education Research and Science Studies (DZHW).

3. Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (2019). Austrian Agency for Research Integrity guidelines for good scientific practice. Accessed on March 3, 2021, https://oeawi.at/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/OeAWI_Broschüre_Web_2019.pdf.

4. Binswanger, M. (2010). Sinnlose Wettbewerbe. Warum wir immer mehr Unsinn produzieren. Herder.

5. Birnholtz, J. P. (2006). What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(13), 1758–1770.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3