10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Authorship: an ethical dilemma of science Translated title: Autoria: um dilema ético da ciência

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: The scientific and technological progress that has taken place since the 1960s has brought an ever-growing volume of scientific research, and inflation in co-authorship. Over this period, it has been observed that an increasing number of publications have listed authors or co-authors whose participation in the published research was minimal or even nonexistent. The objective of this work was to analyze reports in the literature regarding misconduct in authorship: its types, chief causes, consequences and ethical guidelines; and to outline proposals for greater ethical commitment in scientific publication. DESIGN AND SETTING: Narrative review undertaken at Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil. METHODS: Analysis of publications about authorship using the Medline, Lilacs and SciELO databases. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Frequent types of misconduct were gift authorship and divided and redundant publications. The chief causes of these practices seem to be the pressure exerted by academia and the desire for social and professional development. Such factors have brought an increase in unethical behavior. This bias in science continues despite the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Vancouver group. RECOMMENDATIONS: Various actions are proposed for educational institutions, research development agencies, regulatory agencies and professional associations. The aim is to establish an evaluation policy that gives primacy to the quality of publications and sets ethical principles for scientific research.

          Translated abstract

          CONTEXTO AND OBJETIVO: Com o avanço científico e tecnológico ocorrido a partir dos anos 60, surgiu um crescente aumento do número de pesquisas científicas e uma inflação de co-autorias. Ao longo do tempo, observou-se que numerosas publicações mostravam autores ou co-autores cuja participação na pesquisa publicada havia sido mínima ou até mesmo inexistente. O objetivo deste trabalho é analisar, através da literatura, as situações de má-conduta em autoria: tipos, principais causas, conseqüências e normas éticas; e estabelecer propostas para que as publicações científicas apresentem um maior comprometimento ético. TIPO DE ESTUDO E LOCAL: Revisão narrativa realizada na Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brasil. MÉTODO: Análise de publicações sobre autoria, através das bases de dados Medline, Lilacs e SciELO. RESULTADOS E CONCLUSÕES: Freqüentes tipos de má conduta são autoria "presenteada", fragmentação e duplicação em publicações. As causas que mais induzem a essas situações parecem ser a pressão exercida pela academia e o desejo de ascensão social e profissional. Esse viés na ciência, acrescido de outras formas de autoria antiética, continua até hoje, apesar dos critérios definidos pelo Comitê Internacional de Editores de Periódicos Médicos, o Grupo de Vancouver. RECOMENDAÇÕES: São propostas várias ações juntoàs instituições de ensino, agências de fomento à pesquisa, órgãos reguladores e associações de classe, para que se institua uma política de avaliação que priorize a qualidade das publicações, bem como o estabelecimento de preceitos éticos em pesquisa e produção científica.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The politics of publication.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: frequency of undeserved coauthorship.

            Over half of the major papers published in the American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR) have five or more coauthors. This project was designed to evaluate the specific contributions of coauthors and the prevalence of undeserved authorship in major papers from institutions in the United States. Questionnaires were mailed to the first author of 275 major papers from institutions in the United States that were published in the AJR in 1992 and 1993. Questions focused on coauthors' contributions to research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation, and on undeserving authorship. One hundred ninety-six (72%) of the surveys were returned. Ninety-nine percent of first authors, 75% of second authors, fewer than half of third authors, and one third of fourth authors and beyond were said to have contributed to at least three of the following: research design, data collection, data analysis, and manuscript preparation (p < .02). A strong correlation was indicated between authorship position and contribution (r = -.69, p < .001), with a mean overall contribution of 63 +/- 17% (mean +/- SD) for the first author, 20 +/- 12% for the second author, 10 +/- 7% for the third author, 7 +/- 6% for the fourth author, and 5 +/- 5% for all other authors. Coauthors were listed in decreasing order of contribution in 70% of articles. However, the last author was the second major contributor in 10% of articles with three or more authors. The incidence of "undeserved" coauthors increased from 9% on papers with three authors to 30% on papers with more than six authors (mean, 17%; r = .97; p < .001). Undeserved authorship was attributed largely to individuals who contributed only cases (29%) or who created a sense of obligation or fear in the first author (40%). Manuscripts were more likely to include an undeserved coauthor when the first author was a nontenured staff member (45%) than when he or she was tenured faculty (28%) (p < .02). When decision about authorship were made at project conception, there were fewer coauthors (3.9 versus 5.4, p < .02) and a lower incidence of manuscripts with undeserving coauthors (23% versus 47%, p < .01). The final manuscript was read by all coauthors in 80% of manuscripts, and all coauthors were thought to understand the manuscript to the extent they could publicly defend it in 78% of manuscripts. The most commonly cited reason that otherwise honest individuals accept undeserved authorship was academic promotion. Undeserved authorship is a common and serious problem that is motivated primarily by academic promotion policies. The first two authors are said to account for the preponderance of work in almost all major papers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication.

              Fraud is a dramatic offense in scientific publishing but other offenses are more frequent and probably far more damaging. The most frequent lesser offenses are irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. The authorship problems include listing of "authors" who made little or no contribution to the work reported and omitting of persons who made major contributions. Wasteful publication includes dividing the results in a single study into two or more papers ("salami science"); republishing the same material in successive papers (which need not have identical format and content); and blending data from one study with additional data to extract yet another paper that could not make its way on the second set of data alone ("meat extenders"). Wasteful publication may be the most frequent of these offenses and is probably the most damaging because of its economic implications for publishers, readers, libraries, and indexes.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ND
                Journal
                spmj
                Sao Paulo Medical Journal
                Sao Paulo Med. J.
                Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM (São Paulo )
                1806-9460
                November 2005
                : 123
                : 5
                : 242-246
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá Brazil
                Article
                S1516-31802005000500008
                10.1590/S1516-31802005000500008
                bb3eff3f-829e-45b9-ba38-995f3705ab4c

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History
                Product

                SciELO Brazil

                Self URI (journal page): http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_serial&pid=1516-3180&lng=en
                Categories
                MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL

                Internal medicine
                Authorship,Ethics,Science,Scientific misconduct,Publications,Autoria,Ética,Ciência,Má conduta científica,Publicações

                Comments

                Comment on this article