Introduction of the Problem
Assigning authorship in the scientific sphere is a complicated process which can cause various disputes. The main problem is connected with determining the share of each author’s contribution to work. It is described in the context of science-intensive indices, according to which the effectiveness of the scientific activity is assessed. Many ethical or moral issues can occur due to the author’s order and the identifying the contribution of a particular scientist. Different journals and publishers offer their criteria for assigning authors of the scientific work (Dance, 2012). However, even though these requirements alleviate and structure the process of authorship assignment, many problems, such as gift authorship, can occur.
The research area significantly affects the authors’ ranking in the article list. In most articles, the author who has done more work is highlighted. Each of the authors makes unequal contributions to scientific work. The practical importance of studying this problem is described by the fact that the scientists believe that their contribution is determined by the order of the initials in the list. The authorship assigning should be based on ethical principles focusing on the amount of work done within the scope of the manuscript. The thesis statement can be formulated as follows: the ethical considerations in terms of the authorships are vital to consider when creating the lists of authors.
Literature Review
The researchers offer to use another term for identifying the author of the manuscripts: contributor. Such a terminological change allocates another approach to estimating the value of each author’s work (Venkatraman, 2010). The practical assessment of contribution was executed repeatedly by academic journals and individual professors such as Kosslyn. Researchers developed the system of evaluating authors’ work, which required gaining a particular score to determine the order of authors in the list (Venkatraman, 2010). This practice allows for avoiding misjudging and unfair treatment in the sphere of authorship. Kosslyn also mentioned the criterion of creativity, which should be specially addressed and evaluated within the scope of work creation (Dance, 2012). In other words, estimating each author’s contribution qualitatively and quantitatively is vital.
Situation
The issue under consideration is related to the gift authorship problem. Susan and Mike are undergraduate students at the university who worked on the scientific manuscript for the academic journal publication. The work was supported by a university professor, a well-known researcher in the academic field. The professor guided students on the question of resource allocation and participated in the publication process. Susan and Mike performed the whole data collection and composed the work themselves. In other words, the students prepared the major part of the manuscript. However, after the work was published, Susan and Mike realized that the name of the professor was in the first place in the authors’ line. The professor described that using his name in this way was necessary for drawing the attention of the academic audience. A well-known person in the first place in the authorship list can improve the chances for the article to be noticed. Susan and Mike do not share the position of the professor because of the unequal contribution and unfair authorship assignment.
Problem Solution
At first glance, the professor’s decision on authorship assigning seems rational, having well-developed argumentation. However, the professor’s choice can be considered as a violation of the ethical norms. The discussed case is an example of the gift authorship. Stemwedel and Rennie actively used this term to define the authors who make minor efforts in the creation of the work but are mentioned in the authors’ list (Venkatraman, 2010). In the current case, the goal is to help the new authors to be noticed. However, the researchers emphasize that “gifted” authors should be placed in the middle of the list (Venkatraman, 2010). In this situation, it is obviously unethical to diminish the efforts of the students. Following this generous aim, the professor at least should have put Susan or Mike in the first place. The academic community treat the authorship list as the element determining the role of the contribution. In other words, the student’s actual work is underestimated, causing a severe violation of their rights.
Another strategy helping to solve this issue is to provide a description of the work done at the beginning of the article. Some researchers believe that such an approach is irrelevant to the academic sphere (Venkatraman, 2010). However, it still may be implemented in such cases when diverse aims are followed. In this situation, the professor’s name may be preserved in the first place. The only condition is to describe each author’s work in detail.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the creation of lists of authors must be conducted with consideration to the ethics. A scientific publication is subject to specific rules, which may be prone to deviation from the truth or even law. Such norms as a conscientious attitude to the formation of the results obtained and scientific honesty are the main principles of any academic activity. The practical case information supported the main argument. Avoiding ethical considerations in assigning the authorship list cause violations of author rights. The study is important in showing that the ethical problems regarding the authorship can be efficiently solved. The provided approaches can be used in future in theoretical research and practical cases. For future research in this sphere, estimating the violation of ethical norms’ consequences for the scientific field is recommended.
References
Dance, A. (2012). Authorship: Who’s on first? Nature, 489, 591–593. Web.
Venkatraman, V. (2010). Conventions of scientific authorship. Science. Web.