Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions.

IF 4.4 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Elise Demeter, George Banks, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Katherine Hall-Hertel, Lisa Rasmussen
{"title":"Faculty-student differences in authorship perceptions before and after authorship ethics interventions.","authors":"Elise Demeter, George Banks, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Katherine Hall-Hertel, Lisa Rasmussen","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2026.2651757","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Authorship practices in collaborative research teams are often complex and influence perceptions surrounding fairness, responsibility, and accountability in scholarly work. This study investigates prevailing authorship norms, the frequency of authorship disagreements, and differences in authorship perceptions across faculty and student roles, genders, and disciplinary contexts. Survey results reveal systematic differences, particularly between faculty and students, in how authorship distribution is perceived and how different types of researcher contributions are valued toward authorship credit. We further assess changes in authorship norms and ethical perceptions through a follow-up survey after a three-year effort to improve authorship ethics on our campus, which included training on ethical authorship practices and adoption of a formal institutional authorship policy. The results show notable shifts in researchers' awareness, expectations, and attitudes toward authorship ethics and responsibilities. This suggests proactive education and policymaking can promote integrity in collaborative scholarly work and recalibrate local norms. Based on these insights, we offer recommendations for supporting transparent authorship communication and fostering more ethical research environments.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"2651757"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2026.2651757","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Authorship practices in collaborative research teams are often complex and influence perceptions surrounding fairness, responsibility, and accountability in scholarly work. This study investigates prevailing authorship norms, the frequency of authorship disagreements, and differences in authorship perceptions across faculty and student roles, genders, and disciplinary contexts. Survey results reveal systematic differences, particularly between faculty and students, in how authorship distribution is perceived and how different types of researcher contributions are valued toward authorship credit. We further assess changes in authorship norms and ethical perceptions through a follow-up survey after a three-year effort to improve authorship ethics on our campus, which included training on ethical authorship practices and adoption of a formal institutional authorship policy. The results show notable shifts in researchers' awareness, expectations, and attitudes toward authorship ethics and responsibilities. This suggests proactive education and policymaking can promote integrity in collaborative scholarly work and recalibrate local norms. Based on these insights, we offer recommendations for supporting transparent authorship communication and fostering more ethical research environments.

作者伦理干预前后作者认知的师生差异。
合作研究团队中的作者身份实践通常是复杂的,并且影响着学术工作中围绕公平、责任和问责的观念。本研究调查了普遍的作者身份规范,作者身份分歧的频率,以及教师和学生角色,性别和学科背景下作者身份观念的差异。调查结果揭示了系统性的差异,特别是在教师和学生之间,在如何感知作者的分布以及如何将不同类型的研究人员的贡献作为作者信用的价值。经过三年的努力,我们进一步评估了作者规范和道德观念的变化,通过一项后续调查来改善我们校园的作者道德,其中包括关于道德作者实践的培训和采用正式的机构作者政策。研究结果显示,研究人员对作者伦理和责任的认识、期望和态度发生了显著变化。这表明,积极主动的教育和政策制定可以促进协作学术工作的诚信,并重新调整地方规范。基于这些见解,我们提出了支持透明的作者沟通和培养更多道德研究环境的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书