From: Amy Brand <[log in to unmask]> Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 05:06:44 -0500 Thanks for sharing this Jim. Transparency in the review process is important, yes, but so is transparency in author/contributor roles, and a community-wide effort called CRediT (for contributor role taxonomy) is now gaining ground. Lots of links I could include here, but one is https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/05/20/140228 and references there. When roles like "supervision" and "funding" are explicitly called out, it clarifies real authorship. Amy Brand On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 4:22 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > From: "Jim O'Donnell" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 13:58:12 -0700 > > Saw on LJ's invariably interesting InfoDocket, validating that if you > give people an incentive to do something, some will do it: > > “Authorship and Citation Manipulation in Academic Research” in PLOS: > doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0187394 > > Abstract: > Some scholars add authors to their research papers or grant proposals > even when those individuals contribute nothing to the research effort. > Some journal editors coerce authors to add citations that are not > pertinent to their work and some authors pad their reference lists > with superfluous citations. How prevalent are these types of > manipulation, why do scholars stoop to such practices, and who among > us is most susceptible to such ethical lapses? This study builds a > framework around how intense competition for limited journal space and > research funding can encourage manipulation and then uses that > framework to develop hypotheses about who manipulates and why they do > so. We test those hypotheses using data from over 12,000 responses to > a series of surveys sent to more than 110,000 scholars from eighteen > different disciplines spread across science, engineering, social > science, business, and health care. We find widespread misattribution > in publications and in research proposals with significant variation > by academic rank, discipline, sex, publication history, co-authors, > etc. Even though the majority of scholars disapprove of such tactics, > many feel pressured to make such additions while others suggest that > it is just the way the game is played. The findings suggest that > certain changes in the review process might help to stem this ethical > decline, but progress could be slow. > > Jim O'Donnell > ASU >