促进研究生教育中伦理作者实践的干预。

IF 3 2区 哲学 Q1 ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Elise Demeter, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Lisa M Rasmussen, George Banks, Katherine Hall-Hertel
{"title":"促进研究生教育中伦理作者实践的干预。","authors":"Elise Demeter, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Lisa M Rasmussen, George Banks, Katherine Hall-Hertel","doi":"10.1007/s11948-025-00548-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Authorship credit is essential for researchers' success in academia. For academics collaborating with others, differing perceptions of how to value different contributions, disciplinary differences in authorship conventions, and power differences among collaborators can make authorship decisions more difficult to navigate in ways that feel fair and transparent to all involved. Graduate students may feel particularly disadvantaged in authorship decisions due to their relative lack of publishing experience. Here we tested the effectiveness of an educational training intervention designed to promote ethical authorship practices by supporting graduate students' knowledge of authorship and authorship ethics and their ability to effectively navigate authorship conversations with collaborators. Students (n = 185) underwent an online training program and used an authorship agreement form to discuss authorship on a research project with their faculty mentor. We randomly assigned half of the students to undergo an additional small group workshop to test the level of institutional investments needed to see benefits for students. We found the online training and authorship agreement forms boosted students' perceptions of their authorship knowledge and confidence effectively navigating authorship conversations with collaborators. The additional workshop did not yield further benefits for students' outcomes, suggesting that institutions can help promote ethical authorship through low-cost, scalable educational resources.</p>","PeriodicalId":49564,"journal":{"name":"Science and Engineering Ethics","volume":"31 4","pages":"22"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12325519/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.\",\"authors\":\"Elise Demeter, Andrew McBride, Holly Holladay-Sandidge, Lisa M Rasmussen, George Banks, Katherine Hall-Hertel\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11948-025-00548-x\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Authorship credit is essential for researchers' success in academia. For academics collaborating with others, differing perceptions of how to value different contributions, disciplinary differences in authorship conventions, and power differences among collaborators can make authorship decisions more difficult to navigate in ways that feel fair and transparent to all involved. Graduate students may feel particularly disadvantaged in authorship decisions due to their relative lack of publishing experience. Here we tested the effectiveness of an educational training intervention designed to promote ethical authorship practices by supporting graduate students' knowledge of authorship and authorship ethics and their ability to effectively navigate authorship conversations with collaborators. Students (n = 185) underwent an online training program and used an authorship agreement form to discuss authorship on a research project with their faculty mentor. We randomly assigned half of the students to undergo an additional small group workshop to test the level of institutional investments needed to see benefits for students. We found the online training and authorship agreement forms boosted students' perceptions of their authorship knowledge and confidence effectively navigating authorship conversations with collaborators. The additional workshop did not yield further benefits for students' outcomes, suggesting that institutions can help promote ethical authorship through low-cost, scalable educational resources.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49564,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"22\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-08-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12325519/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Science and Engineering Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00548-x\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Engineering Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-025-00548-x","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

作者信用是研究人员在学术上取得成功的关键。对于与他人合作的学者来说,对如何评价不同贡献的不同看法、作者身份惯例的学科差异以及合作者之间的权力差异,都可能使作者身份的决定更难以公平和透明的方式进行。由于相对缺乏出版经验,研究生在决定作者身份时可能会感到特别不利。在这里,我们测试了教育培训干预的有效性,该干预旨在通过支持研究生对作者身份和作者道德的了解,以及他们有效地与合作者进行作者身份对话的能力,来促进道德作者身份实践。185名学生接受了一个在线培训项目,并使用作者协议表格与他们的教师导师讨论研究项目的作者身份。我们随机分配了一半的学生参加一个额外的小组研讨会,以测试为学生带来好处所需的机构投资水平。我们发现在线培训和作者协议表格提高了学生对他们的作者知识的认知和信心,有效地引导了与合作者的作者对话。额外的研讨会并没有为学生的成果带来进一步的好处,这表明机构可以通过低成本、可扩展的教育资源来帮助促进道德写作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.

Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.

Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.

Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.

Intervention to Promote Ethical Authorship Practices in Graduate Education.

Authorship credit is essential for researchers' success in academia. For academics collaborating with others, differing perceptions of how to value different contributions, disciplinary differences in authorship conventions, and power differences among collaborators can make authorship decisions more difficult to navigate in ways that feel fair and transparent to all involved. Graduate students may feel particularly disadvantaged in authorship decisions due to their relative lack of publishing experience. Here we tested the effectiveness of an educational training intervention designed to promote ethical authorship practices by supporting graduate students' knowledge of authorship and authorship ethics and their ability to effectively navigate authorship conversations with collaborators. Students (n = 185) underwent an online training program and used an authorship agreement form to discuss authorship on a research project with their faculty mentor. We randomly assigned half of the students to undergo an additional small group workshop to test the level of institutional investments needed to see benefits for students. We found the online training and authorship agreement forms boosted students' perceptions of their authorship knowledge and confidence effectively navigating authorship conversations with collaborators. The additional workshop did not yield further benefits for students' outcomes, suggesting that institutions can help promote ethical authorship through low-cost, scalable educational resources.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Science and Engineering Ethics
Science and Engineering Ethics 综合性期刊-工程:综合
CiteScore
10.70
自引率
5.40%
发文量
54
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Science and Engineering Ethics is an international multidisciplinary journal dedicated to exploring ethical issues associated with science and engineering, covering professional education, research and practice as well as the effects of technological innovations and research findings on society. While the focus of this journal is on science and engineering, contributions from a broad range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities, are welcomed. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, ethics of new and emerging technologies, research ethics, computer ethics, energy ethics, animals and human subjects ethics, ethics education in science and engineering, ethics in design, biomedical ethics, values in technology and innovation. We welcome contributions that deal with these issues from an international perspective, particularly from countries that are underrepresented in these discussions.
×
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