All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross-sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science

References

• Anderson, M. S., F. C. Kot, M. A. Shaw, C. C. Lepkowski, and R. G. De Vries. 2011. Authorship diplomacy. American Scientist 99:204–07.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhopal, R., J. Rankin, E. McColl, L. Thomas, E. Kaner, R. Stacy, P. Pearson, B. Vernon, and H. Rodgers. 1997. The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. Bmj 314 (7086):1009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biagioli, M. 1998. The instability of authorship: Credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. The FASEB Journal 12 (1):3–16.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Biagioli, M. 2000. Rights or reward: Changing contexts and definitions of scientific authorship. Journal of College and University Law 27:83.
   Google Scholar
• Biagioli, M., and P. Galison. 2003. Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science. New York and Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, G. A. 2006. Grounded theory and sensitzing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (3):1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, J., and A. Trent. 2006. Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research 6 (3):319–40.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, R. 1975. Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. New York: Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Cutas, D., and D. Shaw. 2015. Writers blocked: On the wrongs of research co-authorship and some possible strategies for improvement. Science and Engineering Ethics 21 (5):1315–29.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duch, J., J. S. Waitzman, and L. A. N. Amaral. 2010. Quantifying the performance of individual players in a team activity. PLoS One 5 (6):e10937.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fanelli, D., and L. Vincent. 2016. Researchers’ individual publication rate has not increased in a century. PloS One 11 (3):e0149504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fochler, M., U. Felt, and M. Ruth. 2016. Unsustainable growth, hyper-competition, and worth in life science research: Narrowing evaluative repertoires in doctoral and postdoctoral scientists’ work and lives. Minerva 54 (2):175–200.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gøtzsche, P. C., A. Hróbjartsson, H. K. Johansen, M. T. Haahr, D. G. Altman, and A.-W. Chan. 2007. Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Medicine 4 (1):e19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammarfelt, B., S. De Rijcke, and P. Wouters. 2017. From eminent men to excellent universities: University rankings as calculative devices. Minerva. forthcoming. doi:10.1007/s11024-017-9329-x.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hammarfelt, B., S. D. De Rijcke, and A. D. Rushforth. 2016. Quantified academic selves: The gamification of research through social networking services. Information Research 21 (2):21–22.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jabbehdari, S., and J. P. Walsh. 2017. Authorship norms and project structures in science. Science, Technology, & Human Values 42 (5):872–900.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jones, A. H. 2000. Changing traditions of authorship. In Ethical issues in biomedical publication, ed. A. H. Jones and F. McLellan, 3–29. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kovacs, J. 2013. Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):509–12. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100568.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacs, J. 2017. Honorary authorship and symbolic violence. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 20 (1):51–59.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Latour, B. 1987. Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lincoln, Y. S., and E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry, Vol. 75. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Macfarlane, B. 2017. The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Studies in Higher Education 42 (7):1194–210.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marušić, A., L. Bošnjak, and J. Ana. 2011. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PloS One 6 (9):e23477.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Matheson, A. 2011. How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship—And how they should be revised. PLoS Medicine 8 (8):e1001072.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merton, R. K. 1988. The Matthew effect in science, II: Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. Isis 79 (4):606–23.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, R. 2012. Collaborating in life science research groups: The question of authorship. Higher Education Policy 25 (3):289–311.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Müller, R., and D. R. Sarah. 2017. Exploring the epistemic impacts of academic performance indicators in the life sciences. Research Evaluation 26 (3):157–68. doi:10.1093/reseval/rvx023.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nylenna, M., F. Fagerbakk, and P. Kierulf. 2014. Authorship: Attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Okraku, T. K., R. Vacca, J. W. Jawitz, and C. McCarty. 2017. Identity and publication in non-university settings: Academic co-authorship and collaboration. Scientometrics 111 (1):401–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oravec, J. A. 2017. The manipulation of scholarly rating and measurement systems: Constructing excellence in an era of academic stardom. Teaching in Higher Education 22 (4):423–36.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Parker, J. N., N. Vermeulen, and B. Penders. 2010. Collaboration in the new life sciences. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Paul-Hus, A., P. Mongeon, M. Sainte-Marie, and L. Vincent. 2017. The sum of it all: Revealing collaboration patterns by combining authorship and acknowledgements. Journal of Informetrics 11 (1):80–87.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penders, B. 2017. The value of vagueness in the politics of authorship. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 14 (1):13–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penders, B., and A. P. Nelis. 2011. Credibility Engineering in the Food Industry. Linking science, regulation and marketing in a corporate context. Science in Context 29 (4):487–515.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Penders, B., N. Vermeulen, and J. N. Parker. 2015. Collaboration across health research and medical care. Healthy collaboration. Farnham, UK: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Penders, B., A. Wolters, E. F. Feskens, F. Brouns, M. Huber, E. L. M. Maeckelberghe, G. Navis, T. Ockhuizen, J. Plat, and J. Sikkema. 2017. Capable and credible? Challenging nutrition science. European Journal of Nutrition 56 (6):2009–12.
   Google Scholar
• Perneger, T. V., A. Poncet, M. Carpentier, T. Agoritsas, C. Combescure, and G.-A. Angèle. 2017. Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: Cross-sectional study of researchers’ roles and author order in the annals of internal medicine. BMJ Open 7:6. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013898.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rushforth, A., and D. R. Sarah. 2015. Accounting for impact? The journal impact factor and the making of biomedical research in the Netherlands. Minerva 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11024-015-9274-5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salita, J. T. 2010. Authorship practices in Asian cultures. The Write Stuff: The Journal of the European Medical Writers Association 19 (1):36–39.
   Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2010a. Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of giving credit. Accountability in Research 17 (3):146–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Seeman, J. I., and M. C. House. 2010b. Influences on authorship issues: An evaluation of receiving, not receiving, and rejecting credit. Accountability in Research 17 (4):176–97.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. M. 2011. The ICMJE’s definition of authorship is illogical and unethical. BMJ: British Medical Journal. 343 :d7192 doi:10.1136/bmj.d7192
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. M. 2016. The virus of vagueness in Authorship. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 13 (3):361–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shaw, D. M., and B. Elger. 2017. The ghost collaborator. Accountability in Research 24 (1):43–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sismondo, S. 2007. Ghost management: How much of the medical literature is shaped behind the scenes by the pharmaceutical industry? PLoS Medicine 4 (9):e286.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sismondo, S. 2009. Ghosts in the machine: Publication planning in the medical sciences. Social Studies of Science 39 (2):171–98.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Street, J. M., W. A. Rogers, M. Israel, and A. J. Braunack-Mayer. 2010. Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science & Medicine 70 (9):1458–65.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teixeira Da Silva, J. A., and J. Dobránszki. 2016. Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: Ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (5):1457–72.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tijdink, J. K., K. Schipper, L. M. Bouter, P. Maclaine Pont, J. De Jonge, and Y. M. Smulders. 2016. How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers. BMJ Open 6 (2):e008681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tijdink, J. K., A. C. M. Vergouwen, and Y. M. Smulders. 2013. Publication pressure and burn out among Dutch medical professors: A nationwide survey. PloS One 8 (9):e73381.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tijdink, J. K., A. C. M. Vergouwen, and Y. M. Smulders. 2014. Emotional exhaustion and burnout among medical professors; a nationwide survey. BMC Medical Education 14 (1):183.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valderas, J. M., R. Alexander Bentley, R. Buckley, K. Brad Wray, S. Wuchty, B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. 2007. Why do team-authored papers get cited more? Science 317 (5844):1496–98. doi:10.1126/science.317.5844.1496b.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Welfare, L. E., and C. R. Sackett. 2010. Authorship in student-faculty collaborative research: Perceptions of current and best practices. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):199–215.
   Google Scholar
• Whitley, R. 2000. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wuchty, S., B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316 (5827):1036–39. doi:10.1126/science.1136099.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youtie, J., and B. Bozeman. 2014. Social dynamics of research collaboration: Norms, practices, and ethical issues in determining co-authorship rights. Scientometrics 101 (2):953–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar