Academic Literacies: Appraisal and social sanction about authorship and scientific integrity

Selbach, Helena Vitalina; Motta-Roth, Désirée; Schmidt, Ana Paula Carvalho

doi:10.1590/1984-6398201812991

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista Brasileira de Linguística Aplicada

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Articles • Rev. bras. linguist. apl. 18 (4) • 2018 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1984-6398201812991 copy

Academic Literacies: Appraisal and social sanction about authorship and scientific integrity¹ 1 The order of authors follows ICMJE reccommendations proportionally: the first two authors (A) giving substantial contributions to the research conception and design, and to the analysis and interpretation of data, (B) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and (C) taking responsibility for the final approval of the version to be published, with Selbach having the responsibility for acting as the corresponding author. The third author substantially contributed to the elaboration of section 3. The final manuscript is a new work and does not include a literature review, data or data analysis from previous dissertations or theses.

Letramentos Acadêmicos: Avaliatividade e sanção social sobre autoria e integridade científica

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Research integrity has been under scrutiny, especially in regard to the legitimacy of academic authorship and co-authorship. We aim to bring a critical perspective to the debate, firstly by presenting how past and recent publications discuss (co-)authorship, and next by developing an appraisal analysis of discourse elements that make types of social sanction regarding the topic available. We conclude by pointing out certain criteria that validate (co-) authorship and kinds of evaluation produced in the reviewed literature. Our results indicate that (co-)authoship credit is affected by power relations and personal interest and that multiauthored publication is gaining significance in collaborative network research environments.

KEYWORDS:
academic writing; authorship; research ethics; language of evaluation; appraisal system

FIELD	VIEWS	SOURCE
EDUCATION	Topic: authorship order	Macfarlane (2009MACFARLANE, B. Researching with integrity: the ethics of academic enquiry. New York: Routledge, 2009.)
	Participants: supervisor, research student
	Evaluation: research ethics, ethical conduct
	Topic: determining authorship credit	Macfarlane; Zhang; Pun (2012MACFARLANE, B.; ZHANG, J.; PUN, A. Academic integrity: a review of the literature. Studies in Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Online, v. 39, n. 2, p. 1-20, 2012.)
	Participants: students, faculty
	Evaluation: academic integrity, academic power abuse
	Topic: gift authorship, authorship order, legitimate claim to authorship	Macfarlane (2017MACFARLANE, B. The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education, Taylor & Francis Online, v. 42, n. 7, p. 1194-1210, 2017.)
	Participants: multiple authors
	Evaluation: White Bull effect (Kwok 2005KWOK, L. S. The white bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics, [s.l.], v. 31, n. 9, p. 554-56, 2005.), Matthew effect (Merton 1973), legitimate authorship
LINGUISTICS	Topic: co-author status criteria in collaborative research	José; Berti (2017JOSÉ, B.; BERTI, M. The increasingly collaborative nature of linguistic scholarship. Journal of English Linguistics, Sage Journals, v. 45, n. 1, p. 88-94, 2017.)
	Participants: co-authors (postdoc, supervising professor, junior professor, more senior colleague)
	Evaluation: limited research experience, effective mentorship, work effectively with others, ethical (legal) responsibility
MEDICINE	Topic: coauthorship roles, publication position	Kwok (2005KWOK, L. S. The white bull effect: abusive coauthorship and publication parasitism. Journal of Medical Ethics, [s.l.], v. 31, n. 9, p. 554-56, 2005.)
	Participants: young investigators, senior collaborators
	Evaluation: White Bull effect, reward, greed, dishonesty, unscrupulous senior researchers, fraudulent behaviour, scientific misconduct, fraud, power asymmetry/intimidation, unfair arrangements, ambition, vanity, desire for fame, laziness, code of silence
	Topic: authorship conflicts: ownership of data, gift authorship, academic competition, personality differences, intellectual passion	Dhaliwal; Singh; Bhatia (2006DHALIWAL, U.; SINGH, N.; BHATIA, A. Awareness of authorship criteria and conflict: survey in a medical institution in India. Medscape General Medicine, v. 8, n. 4, p. 52, 2006.)
	Participants: members of the University College of Medical Sciences
	Evaluation: ability to correctly identify criteria for authorship, intuitive understanding of authorship, well-defined criteria, willful disregard of criteria, misappropriation of authorship, severe emotional stress, academic fatigue, inappropriate academic practices, inappropriate behavior, poor awareness of criteria for authorship
	Topic: Gift authorship, Guest authorship, Ghost authorship	Berquist (2009BERQUIST, T. H. Authorship: Did I really contribute? American Journal of Roentgeneology, American Roentgen Ray Society, v. 193, n. 4, p. 915-916, 2009. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3533 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3533... )
	Participants: authors, contributing authors, acknowledged contributors
	Evaluation: substantive contributions, desire for credit and academic promotion, responsibility for content
	Topic: Gift authorship	Mitcheson; Collings; Siebers (2011MITCHESON, H.; COLLINGS, S.; SIEBERS, R. W. Authorship issues at a New Zealand academic institution. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Shiraz, v. 2, n. 3, p. 166-171, 2011.)
	Participants: junior lecturer, professor
	Evaluation: misappropriation of authorship, degree of awareness of authorship criteria for peer-reviewed publications, academic competition, co-author inappropriately included
NURSING	Topic: inclusion, order in multiauthored publications	*Erlen et al.* (1997**ERLEN, J. A.; SIMINOFF, L. A.; SEREIKA, S. M.; SUTTON, L. B. Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations. Journal of Professional Nursing, Elsevier, v. 13, n. 4, p. 262-270, 1997. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(97)80097-X https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(97)80... )
	Participants: principal investigator, co-principal investigator, team members, nurses, statistician
	Evaluation: “honorary” credit, rewards of writing in collaboration (improved quality of writing, more available resources for research, increased productivity by team members), lack of adequate guidelines, pressure to publish, integrity, responsibility, accountability, recognition, fairness in publications, lack of agreement on assignment of publication credits, assigning authorship based on status or position
	Topic: conflict of interest, disclosure concerns, protection of subjects, copyright, desire for authorship status	Carlson; Ross (2010CARLSON, K.; ROSS, J. Publication ethics: conflicts, copyright, permission, and authorship. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, Elsevier, v. 25, n. 4, p. 263-271, 2010. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2010.05.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2010.05.... )
	Participants: authors, editors, reviewers, publishers
	Evaluation: intellectual property, promotion, to secure funding or grants, ego, status, tenure ambitions
PSYCHOLOGY	Topic: Gift authorship (gifts of credit)	Goodyear; Crego; Johnston (1992GOODYEAR, R. K.; CREGO, C. A.; JOHNSTON, M. W. Ethical issues in the supervision of student research: a study of critical incidents. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, American Psychological Association, v. 23, n. 3, p. 203-210, 1992. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.203 https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.23.3.2... )
	Participants: faculty in doctoral programs (experienced researchers), professional psychologists, students
	Evaluation: incompetent supervision, inadequate supervision (leave students for themselves), supervision abandonment, intrusion of the supervisor’s values, abusive and exploitive supervision, mutual attraction faculty x student

ICMJE’S 4 CRITERIA FOR AUTHORSHIP
1.	CONCEIVING THE STUDY AND GENERATING DATA
	A) Substantial contributions to the Conception or design of the work; or B) Acquisition, C) Analysis, or D) Interpretation of data; or P) participation in specific payment
	*Erlen et al. (1997*ERLEN, J. A.; SIMINOFF, L. A.; SEREIKA, S. M.; SUTTON, L. B. Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations. Journal of Professional Nursing, Elsevier, v. 13, n. 4, p. 262-270, 1997. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(97)80097-X https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-7223(97)80... )	Hoen, Walvoort, and Overbeke (1998HOEN, W. P.; WALVOORT, H. C.; OVERBEKE, A. J. P. M. What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors’ names? A study among authors of the “Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde” (“Dutch Journal of Medicine”). JAMA, American Medical Association, v. 280, n. 3, p. 217-218, 1998. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.217 https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.217... )	Petroianu (2002PETROIANU, A. Autoria de um trabalho científico. Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira, São Paulo, v. 48, n. 1, p. 60-65, 2002. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-42302002000100034 https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-4230200200... )	Carlson and Ross (2010CARLSON, K.; ROSS, J. Publication ethics: conflicts, copyright, permission, and authorship. Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing, Elsevier, v. 25, n. 4, p. 263-271, 2010. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2010.05.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jopan.2010.05.... )
	A) make substantive contribution to paper; renegotiate deadlines in case of unforeseen circumstances; meet the established deadlines (All Authors); specify time frames and deadlines (First Author)	A) design the study;	A) create the idea that originated the work and elaborate hypotheses; individual/collaborative mentor work; coordinate the group;	provide substantial contribution throughout the project, from […] A) conception and idea creation […]
		B) department head; supervision; financing; coordinating data collection; providing patients, subjects, chemical/biological material, research space; collecting data; performing pilot study; patient care; physical examination; laboratory investigation	B) head the place where work was carried out; obtain funds; structure the method; provide patients/material; create tools; work in the daily routine without intellectual contribution; collect data;
		C) statistical analysis	C) analyze results statistically;
		D) statistical advice; providing illustrations	D) solve fundamental problems;
			P) participate in specific payment
2.	WRITING AND REVISING
	E) drafting the work or F) revising it critically for important intellectual content or P) participation in specific payment
	E) develop first draft; submit it to coauthor(s) within specified time frame (First Author);			E) write first version;	E) review literature;	provide substantial contribution throughout the project, […] through E) drafting and F) revision […]
	F) revise paper using suggestions of/in collaboration with other authors; invite and select coauthor(s) to assist with paper (First Author); review entire paper before submition (All Authors)			F) critical reading; rewriting	E+F) write manuscript; mentor writing of manuscript;
		F+) present important suggestions;
		F-) present minor suggestions;
		P) participate in specific payment
3.	ASSUMING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE ENTIRE CONTENT OF THE WORK
	G) Final approval of version to be published or P) participation in specific payment
	assure paper is prepared according to guidelines; forward copy of paper/abstract to be submitted to main investigator for review; forward copy submitted to all authors and principal investigator; forward copy of published article to all authors and to principal investigator (First Author)		approve definitive version		P) participate in specific payment	G) agree with content and findings in final product; provide substantial contribution throughout the project, […] until final version is approved
4.	BEING ACCOUNTABLE FOR ALL ASPECTS OF THE WORK
	H) Ensure that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved or P) participation in specific payment
	sign appropriate authorship disclosure statements (All Authors)				giving a lecture	prepare presentation of work; present work in a scientific event;	provide responsibility for/familiarity with final product
		P) participate in specific payment			giving a lecture		provide responsibility for/familiarity with final product

Faculdade de Letras - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais - Faculdade de Letras, Av. Antônio Carlos, 6627 4º. Andar/4036, 31270-901 Belo Horizonte/ MG/ Brasil, Tel.: (55 31) 3409-6044, Fax: (55 31) 3409-5120 - Belo Horizonte - MG - Brazil
E-mail: rblasecretaria@gmail.com

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS