https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2661-9181
![Sample our Bioscience journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5925/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Bioscience.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The distribution of credit, resources and opportunities in science is heavily skewed due to unjust practices and incentives, hardwired into science’s rules, guidelines and conventions. A form of resistance widely available is to break those rules. We review instances of rule-breaking in scientific authorship to allow for a redefinition of the concept of civil disobedience in the context of academic research, as well as the conditions on which the label applies. We show that, in contrast to whistleblowing or conscientious objection, civil disobedience targets science’s injustice on a more systemic level. Its further development will ease critical evaluation of deviant actions as well as helping us evaluate deviance, defiance and discontent in science beyond issues of authorship. However, empirically, civil disobedience in science engenders uncertainties and disagreements on the local status of both act and label.
Disclosure statement
In the context of their analysis of the phenomenon of civil disobedience in this paper, the authors have themselves engaged in (a parody of) it in their authorship statement (see footnote on 1st page).
Notes
1. Consider, for instance, the scientific “hoax” as a candidate act of civil disobedience, in which researchers produce hoax papers to expose (in their view) problematic current practices or disciplines. These hoaxes range from the submission of nonsensical, computer-generated abstracts or entire papers, to expose journals that do not adhere to publication or review standards, to well-crafted fake papers specifically designed to delegitimise entire fields (such as the Sokal hoax, or the more recent “Grievance studies” hoax).
2. Interestingly, this dynamic is reversed in, for instance, academic philosophy (Cutas and Shaw Citation2015).
3. In fact, the Karolinska Institute affiliation remains possible as his/her identity remains unknown.
4. Fictional authors exist in a second form, described as “Plagiarized Names” (although fabricated names might be more apt) by Biagioli (Citation2019). Biagioli describes instances where in grant applications or paper submissions, fake coauthors with impressive (but fake) affiliations, are used to boost chances. The goal here is not to expose any structural flaws in the system – but to game that system.
5. Scheuerman (Citation2014) suggested that Edward Snowden’s whistleblowing was also an example of civil disobedience, and in fact we would tend toward it being the latter: although his disclosures caused great controversy and exposed unethical practices, those practices were not in contravention of the NSA’s internal rules while his raising concerns was, so civil disobedience seems a better fit. Clearly, the boundary between whistleblowing and civil disobedience is somewhat unclear, as well as the public use of both labels.
6. One could argue that the requirement to be transparent would isolate coauthors from repercussions and direct to consequences of the disobedience to the disobedient individual. However, such consequences – most notably retraction – are elements of an infrastructure that does not have an individual form. Retraction cannot not affect coauthors. We would extend this consent requirement to all civil disobedience where repercussions or consequences are expected to be collective rather than individual.
7. Not unlike the tolerance toward some degree of violence, given restrictions, of course, by Schuyt (Citation2019).
8. In fact, even when it would fall outside of the realm of civil disobedience (which would have to be determined empirically, by inquiring about the motivations, convictions and actions of the authors), it could still contribute to draw attention to structural inequalities in science. In general terms, even if some acts do not amount to civil disobedience in a strict sense, they can nonetheless give their perpetrators a sense of satisfaction that makes academic life a little easier: a form as resistance (Ese Citation2019).
9. Shrum’s proposed citation circles, for instance, very much resemble existing attempts to game the system. These circles have been around for decades, yet have not had a significant effect on authorship and evaluation cultures. Shrum’s proposal could only qualify as civil disobedience and be potentially effective if the proposed breach was both extreme and transparent.
10. This asymmetry is also part of all other manifestations of Civil Disobedience outside of science – where those with the least power and resources have the most to lose by being civilly disobedient.