Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-27T10:25:10.721Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rethinking the Value of Author Contribution Statements in Light of How Research Teams Respond to Retractions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2021

Line Edslev Andersen Open the ORCID record for Line Edslev Andersen [Opens in a new window]  and
K. Brad Wray Open the ORCID record for K. Brad Wray [Opens in a new window]
Line Edslev Andersen*
Affiliation:
Centre for Science Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, DK8000, Denmark
K. Brad Wray
Affiliation:
Centre for Science Studies, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, DK8000, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author. Email: line.edslev.andersen@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The authorship policies of scientific journals often assume that in order to be able to properly place credit and responsibility for the content of a collaborative paper we should be able to distinguish the contributions of the various individuals involved. Hence, many journals have introduced a requirement for author contribution statements aimed at making it easier to place credit and responsibility on individual scientists. We argue that from a purely descriptive point of view the practices of collaborating scientists are at odds with the requirement for author contribution statements. We also argue that from a normative point of view the authorship policies may be unnecessary. Our arguments draw on an examination of 35 years of retraction notices in the journal Science.

Keywords

Collaborative researchretractionsauthorship policiesscientific journalsauthor contribution statements
Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 20 , Issue 2 , June 2023 , pp. 265 - 280
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alberts, B. (2010). ‘Editorial: Promoting Scientific Standards.’ Science 327, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersen, L.E. and Wray, K.B. (2019). ‘Detecting Errors that Result in Retractions.’ Social Studies of Science 49(6), 942–54.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Balter, M. (1999). ‘Data in Key Papers Cannot be Reproduced.’ Science 283, 1987, 1989.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beloqui, A., Guazzaroni, M.E., Pazos, F., Vieites, J.M., Godoy, M., Golyshina, O.V., Chernikova, T.N., Waliczek, A., Silva-Rocha, R., Al-Ramahi, Y., Cono, V.L., Mendex, C., Salas, J.A., Solano, R., Yakimov, M.M., Timmis, K.N., Golyshin, P.N. and Ferrer, M. (2010). ‘Retraction.’ Science 330, 912.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Biagioli, M. (1999). ‘Aporias of Scientific Authorship: Credit and Responsibility in Contemporary Biomedicine.’ In Biagioli, M. (ed.), The Science Studies Reader, pp. 12–30. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bockelmann, U., Thomen, P., Essevaz-Roulet, B., Viasnoff, V. and Heslot, F. (2002). ‘Unzipping DNA with Optical Tweezers: High Sequence Sensitivity and Force Flips.’ Biophysical Journal 82(3), 1537–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Böhlenius, H., Eriksson, S., Parcy, F. and Nilsson, O. (2007). ‘Retraction.’ Science 316, 367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bright, L.K., Dang, H. and Heesen, R. (2018). ‘A Role for Judgment Aggregation in Co-authoring Scientific Papers.’ Erkenntnis 83, 231–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Case, R.B., Chang, Y.-P., Smith, S.B., Gore, J., Cozzarelli, N.R. and Bustamante, C. (2005). ‘Retraction.’ Science 307, 1409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Culliton, B.J. (1986). ‘Harvard Researchers Retract Data in Immunology Paper.’ Science 234, 1069.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Enserink, M. (2017). ‘Researcher in Swedish Fraud Case Speaks Out: ‘I'm Very Disappointed by my Colleague’.’ Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/12/researcher-swedish-fraud-case-speaks-out-i-m-very-disappointed-my-colleague.Google Scholar
Fanelli, D., Ioannidis, J.P.A. and Goodman, S. (2018). ‘Improving the Integrity of Published Science: An Expanded Taxonomy of Retractions and Corrections.’ European Journal of Clinical Investigation 48(4), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fang, F.C., Steen, R.G. and Casadevall, A. (2012). ‘Misconduct Accounts for the Majority of Retracted Scientific Publications.’ PNAS 109(42), 17028–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geremia, J.M., Stockton, J.K. and Mabuchi, H. (2008). ‘Retraction.’ Science 321, 489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goldenberg, C.J. (1989). ‘Retraction.’ Science 243, 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grieneisen, M.L. and Zhang, M. (2012). ‘A Comprehensive Survey of Retracted Articles from the Scholarly Literature.’ PLoS ONE 7(10), 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hosseini, M., Hilhorst, M., de Beaufort, I. and Fanellie, D. (2018). ‘Doing the Right Thing: A Qualitative Investigation of Retractions due to Unintentional Error.’ Science and Engineering Ethics 24, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Huebner, B., Kukla, R. and Winsberg, E. (2018). ‘Making an Author in Radically Collaborative Research.’ In Boyer-Kassem, T., Mayo-Wilson, C. and Weisberg, M. (eds), Scientific Collaboration and Collective Knowledge: New Essays, pp. 95–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huth, E.J. and Case, K. (2004). ‘The URM: 25 years old.’ Science Editor 27(1), 17–21.Google Scholar
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2019). ‘Defining the Role of Authors and Contributors.’ http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.Google Scholar
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). ‘Journals Stating that they Follow the ICMJE Recommendations.’ http://www.icmje.org/journals-following-the-icmje-recommendations/.Google Scholar
Kennedy, D. (2002). ‘Editorial: Next Steps in the Schön Affair.’ Science 298, 495.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahato, R.N., Lülf, H., Siekman, M.H., Kersten, S.P., Bobbert, P.A., de Jong, M.P., De Cola, L. and van der Wiel, W.G. (2013). ‘Ultrahigh Magnetoresistance at Room Temperature in Molecular Wires.’ Science 341, 257–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milanese, C., Richardson, N.E. and Reinherz, E.L. (1986). ‘Retraction.’ Science 234, 1056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nath, S.B., Marcus, S.C. and Druss, B.G. (2006). ‘Retractions in the Research Literature: Misconduct or Mistakes?’ Medical Journal of Australia 185, 152–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Normile, D. (2007). ‘Osaka University Researchers Reject Demand to Retract Science Paper.’ Science 316, 1681.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oransky, I. (2015). ‘Author Retracts Study of Changing Minds on Same-sex Marriage after Colleague Admits Data were Faked.’ Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2015/05/20/author-retracts-study-of-changing-minds-on-same-sex-marriage-after-colleague-admits-data-were-faked/.Google Scholar
Quattrocchi, C.C., Huang, C., Niu, S., Sheldon, M., Benhayon, D., Cartwright, J. Jr., Mosier, D.R., Keller, F. and D'Arcangelo, G. (2004). ‘Retraction.’ Science 303, 1974.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, R.M., Sivaguru, M. and Yong, H.Y. (2007). ‘Retraction.’ Science 317, 450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sauermann, H. and Haeussler, C. (2017). ‘Authorship and Contribution Disclosures.’ Science Advances 3(11), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sismondo, S. (2009). ‘Ghosts in the Machine: Publication Planning in the Medical Sciences.’ Social Studies of Science 39(2), 171–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Stapel, D.A. and Lindenberg, S. (2011). ‘Retraction.’ Science 334, 1202.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tracy, R.B., Hsieh, C.-L. and Lieber, M.R. (2000). ‘Retraction.’ Science 289, 1141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Witte, O.N., Kabarowski, J.H., Xu, Y., Le, L.Q. and Zhu, K. (2005). ‘Retraction.’ Science 307, 206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wray, K.B. and Andersen, L.E. (2018). ‘Retractions in Science.’ Scientometrics 117, 2009–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zielinska, E. (2007). ‘Science Retracts Major Arabidopsis Paper: Scientist Acknowledges Omitting Data, but Denies any Impropriety.’ The Scientist. https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/science-retracts-major-arabidopsis-paper-46569.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Andersen and Wray supplementary material

Andersen and Wray supplementary material

Download Andersen and Wray supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 103.3 KB