| Title |
Trouble in Paradise: Problems in Academic Research Co-authoring
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9722-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Barry Bozeman, Jan Youtie |
| Abstract |
Scholars and policy-makers have expressed concerns about the crediting of coauthors in research publications. Most such problems fall into one of two categories, excluding deserving contributors or including undeserving ones. But our research shows that there is no consensus on "deserving" or on what type of contribution suffices for co-authorship award. Our study uses qualitative data, including interviews with 60 US academic science or engineering researchers in 14 disciplines in a set of geographically distributed research-intensive universities. We also employ data from 161 website posts provided by 93 study participants, again US academic scientists. We examine a variety of factors related to perceived unwarranted exclusion from co-author credit and unwarranted inclusion, providing an empirically-informed conceptual model to explain co-author crediting outcomes. Determinants of outcomes include characteristics of disciplines and fields, institutional work culture, power dynamics and team-specific norms and decision processes. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 33% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 102 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 20 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 19 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 12 | 12% |
| Other | 10 | 10% |
| Professor | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 20% |
| Unknown | 15 | 15% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 19 | 19% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 10 | 10% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 10 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Computer Science | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 28 | 27% |
| Unknown | 23 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2017.
All research outputs
#14,146,941
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#626
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,811
of 285,281 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#13
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,281 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.