Does the Winner Take it All? Increasing Inequality in Scientific Authorship

Author(s):  
Heiko Rauhut ◽  
Fabian Winter ◽  
David Johann
Minerva ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Johann ◽  
Sabrina Jasmin Mayer

2004 ◽  
Vol 45 (2) ◽  
pp. 374
Author(s):  
David Pontille ◽  
Mario Biagioli ◽  
Peter Galison

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rinita Dam ◽  
Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah ◽  
Maria Julia Milano ◽  
Laurel D Edmunds ◽  
Lorna R Henderson ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of success in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignA retrospective descriptive study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.Data2409 publications accepted or published from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2017.Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised clinical research (39%, n=939), basic research (27%, n=643), and other types of research (34%, n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories. Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169), and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant smaller proportions i.e. 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared to male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author(s) with gender of the first author(s) (χ 2 33.742, P < 0.001), corresponding author(s) (χ2 540.774, P < 0.001) and joint last author(s) (χ 2 91.291, P < 0.001).ConclusionsAlthough there are increasing trends of female authors as first authors (41%) and last authors (23%), female authors are underrepresented compared to male authors in all six categories of scientific authorship in biomedical research. Further research is needed to encourage gender parity in different categories of scientific authorship.Strengths and limitations of this studyThis is the first study to investigate gender parity in six categories of scientific authorship: first authors, first corresponding authors, last authors and three joint authorship categories i.e. joint first authors, joint corresponding authors and joint last authors in biomedical research.This study provides an important benchmark on gender equity in scientific authorship for other NIHR funded centres and organisations in England.The generalisability of the findings of this study may be limited due to differences in medical specialities, research areas, institutional cultures, and levels of support to individual researchers.Using secondary sources for determining the gender of authors may have limitations, which could be avoided by seeking relevant information from original authors and institution affiliation at the time of submission.


2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 412-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elsie Breet ◽  
Jan Botha ◽  
Lyn Horn ◽  
Leslie Swartz

Empirical studies of authorship practices in high-income countries have been conducted, while research on this issue is scarce in low- and middle-income countries. A survey was conducted among South African researchers who have published in peer-reviewed journals, to explore their understanding of and ability to apply academic authorship criteria. A total of 967 researchers participated in the survey; 88% of respondents had knowledge of academic authorship criteria, while only 52% found it easy to apply the criteria. More respondents experienced disagreement regarding who qualifies for coauthorship compared with authorship order (59% vs. 48%). Disagreement was mostly linked to different ways of valuing or measuring contributions. Level of agreement with academic authorship criteria was higher than the perceived ability to apply the criteria.


Author(s):  
Luc Schneider

This contribution tries to assess how the Web is changing the ways in which scientific knowledge is produced, distributed and evaluated, in particular how it is transforming the conventional conception of scientific authorship. After having properly introduced the notions of copyright, public domain and (e-)commons, I will critically assess James Boyle's (2003, 2008) thesis that copyright and scientific (e-) commons are antagonistic, but I will mostly agree with the related claim by Stevan Harnad (2001a,b, 2008) that copyright has become an obstacle to the accessibility of scientific works. I will even go further and argue that Open Access schemes not only solve the problem of the availability of scientific literature, but may also help to tackle the uncontrolled multiplication of scientific publications, since these publishing schemes are based on free public licenses allowing for (acknowledged) re-use of texts. However, the scientific community does not seem to be prepared yet to move towards an Open Source model of authorship, probably due to concerns related to attributing credit and responsability for the expressed hypotheses and results. Some strategies and tools that may encourage a change of academic mentality in favour of a conception of scientific authorship modelled on the Open Source paradigm are discussed.


2020 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-436
Author(s):  
Michael J. Barany

Pseudonymous mathematician Nicolas Bourbaki and his lesser-known counterpart E.S. Pondiczery, devised respectively in France and in Princeton in the mid-1930s, together index a pivotal moment in the history of modern mathematics, marked by international infrastructures and institutions that depended on mathematicians’ willingness to play along with mediated personifications. By pushing these norms and practices of personification to their farcical limits, Bourbaki’s and Pondiczery’s impersonators underscored the consensual social foundations of legitimate participation in a scientific community and the symmetric fictional character of both fraud and integrity in scientific authorship. To understand authorial identity and legitimacy, individual authors’ conduct and practices matter less than the collective interpersonal relations of authorial assertion and authentication that take place within disciplinary institutions.


1989 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan N. Schechter ◽  
James B. Wyngaarden ◽  
John T. Edsall ◽  
John Maddox ◽  
Arnold S. Relman ◽  
...  

Physics World ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 21-21
Author(s):  
ASIWEL ASIWEL ◽  
altenber altenber

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document