Skip to content

Authorship in research: practical tips for think tanks

authorship

I just spent some days with a fantastic group of think-tankers, sharing some of the learning from creating the research area at Grupo FARO. Although I initially thought that the topic of authorship when it comes to research might not be as relevant to others, it ended up being that most researchers have encountered issues on the matter. Whether working at a think tank, going through a PhD programme or working at universities, authorship issues are much more common than I thought. Although authorship is different when we talk policy, for think tanks’ academic side it is still relevant. So, here are some insights, based on the discussion we had and The Cope Report 2003 report that sets some guidelines.

Why is authorship clarity relevant for think tanks?

Authoring papers is a big deal for researchers. Many think tanks’ performance schemes and incentives are based on the number of publications. But, do we have clear rules that prevent these incentives to affect the ethics of authorship? Free riders can appear in the process, senior researchers can impose their name on a paper, and so on.

What’s more, junior researchers are eager to strengthen their publications record. But how exactly does their participation in senior researchers’ projects help them? Not having clear guidelines might create false expectations and actually deteriorate what could otherwise be a motivational aspect of their work. Authorship disputes can really affect a working environment and even inhibit cooperation among researchers.

With authorship does not only come credit but also responsibility.  Authors cannot only benefit from incentive schemes, but can actually suffer the consequence of badly carried out research once it is public. In these unfortunate times organisations can actually benefit from the “…this paper represents the author(s) position…”  small print.

On the other hand, as one of my colleagues at this meeting mentioned, think tanks’ research is not free of danger. Although some contexts are risk-free, others can put in danger an author’s security. Would it then be a good idea to use an institutional or group’s name instead?

What is ethical authorship?

Basically it entails giving credit to everyone who deserves it and not including those who do not. But how can we determine that?  The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), I think, summarises it in a rather simple way.

Authorship credit should be based only on:

(1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

(2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and

(3) final approval of the version to be published.

Conditions (1), (2), and (3) must all be met. Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or general supervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.

And we should not forget about the order of authors. Although there is no set standard on what the first name on a paper means, citation methods do give that first surname an extra-bonus thanks to the so popular use of ‘et. al.’

Whether authorship is alphabetical or the first author has a meaning (i.e. coordination, main researcher), do not forget it may affect the teams internal workings.

So how do we encourage ethical authorship?

  • If there are any sort of guidelines for research at the think tank, authorship should be included. Like most things that cause conflict, the idea is to bring it up sooner rather than later. For example, at Grupo FARO, we encourage teams to discuss and define authorship at the onset of a project. Furthermore, some teams have stated each participant’s contribution to the process which adds clarity and may help later if disputes arise. The issue then needs to be brought up every time someone joins or leaves the team.
  • Promote the use of acknowledgements. These can prevent authors from feeing that they are leaving someone out, and this way others’ contributions will be stated.
  • Communicate, communicate, communicate. Even if researchers may not want to talk about this, it is the leaders’ job to bring it up. After all, this may end up turning into a reputational hazard.

Even with these preventive actions authorship disputes may arise: be ready for them. Document the decision making process and include a dispute solving mechanism as part of whichever ethical structure the think tanks has (i.e ethical committee or code).

About these ads
3 Comments Post a comment
  1. Hans Gutbrod #

    Andrea,

    thanks for this excellent post. In our experience at CRRC, it ended up being much more varied than I would have anticipated. In principle I would have been in favor of a clear policy, so that everyone knows what they are in for. But things worked out differently, because production processes often worked in different ways. Sometimes our reports were based on extensive empirical research, with people preparing complex surveys, running dozens of interviews and a good number of focus groups. Putting a single author, or even a group of authors, would have insufficiently acknowledged the huge contribution of the entire team. Thus, we kept the names off.

    Other reports started single-author, and then the material turned out to be much more complicated with multiple editors and extensive re-writes, so that single authorship just didn’t seem right. As we were happy with the results, this worked for everyone.

    Similarly, we were impressed by the European Stability Initiative (http://bit.ly/ESI_Web). They have the practice to never name their authors, and instead to create documents that everyone is proud of, and fully identifies with. Who actually wrote the report consequently becomes much less important.

    The one cardinal rule that I absolutely believe in is that the role of the leadership in the think tank is to get other people to succeed. Thus, I personally prefer that think tank leaders and research directors do not put their names onto publications. Where it’s inevitable that they do (as can be the case for relevant experts to be identified), it is really preferable if they include junior members in the writing process, and give them prominence in the credits.

    In that way, I fully agree with what you write, on the need for an ethical approach. Think tanks are teams, and they work best when the leaders help the team members to succeed, rather than using team member contributions for their own success.

    Thanks again, great topic.

    April 4, 2013
    • Thanks for sharing more ideas on authorship, Hans! There are reasons to do the institutional authorship, but in those cases – like you said – the organization has to be fully aligned with the report, and that is not always the case, especially in bigger think tanks. But I would definetly suggested in certain cases even then.

      What truly worried me was that think tanks set incentive schemes based on the number of publications but have no clear guidelines on authorship. I could imagine the bad side of this incentives being unethical authorship. So the key is to talk about the issue in terms of: ethics, teamwork, organizational culture and profesional growth.

      Thanks for your comments!

      April 4, 2013
      • Hans Gutbrod #

        good points…

        Are these incentive schemes based on the number of publications widespread? I wonder whether there is any evidence that they work well. Intuitively, I would be very skeptical about this, since you presumably want a broader commitment to excellence, and not people gaming the system.

        This is just one recent blog posts on the problems of such incentive systems: http://bit.ly/Incentive_Problems , and of course there is a broader burgeoning literature on their problematic impact in academia and research, and of how incentives shift people’s motivation from intrinsic to being reward-oriented.

        I’d thus be very curious to hear more about the incentive systems.

        April 4, 2013

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,797 other followers

%d bloggers like this: