In simple cases, a solitary scholar carries out a research project and writes the subsequent article or book. According to some standards, even writing the entire article would not constitute authorship unless the writer was also involved in at least one other phase of the project. The origins of political correctness accuracy in academia pdf may be formally defined or simply cultural custom.
A 2002 survey of a large sample of researchers who had received funding from the U. This was the first large scale survey concerning such issues. In other fields only limited or no empirical data is available. Thus, unless a footnote or the text of the paper explicitly assigns responsibility for different parts of the paper to different authors, the authors whose names appear on a paper must share responsibility for all of it. The medical field defines authorship very narrowly. Acquisition of funding, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.
Many authors – especially those in the middle of the byline – do not fulfill these authorship criteria. Between about 1980-2010 the average number of authors in medical papers increased, and perhaps tripled. The APA acknowledge that authorship is not limited to the writing of manuscripts, but must include those who have made substantial contributions to a study such as “formulating the problem or hypothesis, structuring the experimental design, organizing and conducting the statistical analysis, interpreting the results, or writing a major portion of the paper”. While the APA guidelines list many other forms of contributions to a study that do not constitute authorship, it does state that combinations of these and other tasks may justify authorship. Like medicine, the APA considers institutional position, such as Department Chair, insufficient for attributing authorship.
From the late 17th century to the 1920s, sole authorship was the norm, and the one-paper-one-author model worked well for distributing credit. Today, shared authorship is common in most academic disciplines, with the exception of the humanities, where sole authorship is still the predominant model. In particular types of research, including particle physics, genome sequencing and clinical trials, a paper’s author list can run into the hundreds. Every publication coming out of CDF uses the entire standard author list, in alphabetical order. Other big collaborations, including most particle physics experiments, followed this model.
In large, multi-center clinical trials authorship is often used as a reward for recruiting patients. 1993 reported on a clinical trial conducted in 1,081 hospitals in 15 different countries, involving a total of 41,021 patients. There were 972 authors listed in an appendix and authorship was assigned to a group. 5,154 authors, the printed author list needed 24 pages. Large authors lists have attracted some criticism.
They strain guidelines that insist that each author’s role be described and that each author is responsible for the validity of the whole work. Alternatively, the increase in multi-authorship might be a consequence of the way scientists are evaluated. Traditionally, scientists were judged by the number of papers they published, and later by the impact of those papers. The former is an estimate of quantity and the latter of quality. Both methods were adequate when single authorship was the norm, but vastly inflate individual contribution when papers are multi-authored. Furthermore, there is no cost to giving authorship to individuals who made only minor contribution and there is an incentive to do so. Hence, the system rewards heavily multi-authored papers.
This problem is openly acknowledged, and it could easily be “corrected” by dividing each paper and its citations by the number of authors. Finally, the rise in shared authorship may also reflect increased acknowledgment of the contributions of lower level workers, including graduate students and technicians, as well as honorary authorship, while allowing for such collaborations to make an independent statement about the quality and integrity of a scientific work. Until recently, it was standard to list the head of a German department or institution as an author on a paper regardless of input. The extent to which honorary authorship still occurs is not empirically known.