This research focuses on scientific collaboration, specifically decision-making and social dynamics related to awarding co-authorship. Co-author credit is vital to researchers? career advancement, reward and reputation. Early career scientists, who are especially in need of co-authorship credit to establish themselves, little experience with co-authoring and in many cases their graduate education and early experience includes no formal training or of even discussion of decision-making and criteria pertaining to co-authoring. In contemporary research, characterized by increased co-authoring, increased numbers of co-authors per paper, co-authors with different disciplinary backgrounds working together, every increasing specialization, it is all the more useful to understand how co-author credit decisions are made. The investigators examine a variety of factors hypothesized as affecting co-authoring crediting outcomes including (a) research collaborators? characteristics, group relationships, including power, status and gender and race dynamics, (b) influences of government funding agencies or industrial sponsors, and (c) co-authoring norms guidelines set by professional associations and journal editors and publishers. Finally, they consider effects accruing from the ?aftermath? of collaboration and crediting, including researchers? likelihood of choosing to collaborate with one another in the future and general effects of the collaboration experience on researchers? motivations. The study uses a variety of methods to learn about co-authoring and collaboration patterns, including interviews with co-author groups, case studies, analysis of co-author patterns using software and statistics permitting the analysis of these patterns, and an on-line questionnaire surveying co-authors. The primary intellectual impact of the study will be to provide additional understanding of the rapidly changing world of scientific collaboration and particularly the ways in which researchers decide to award credit and the impacts of those practices on scientific careers. The study?s broader impacts will include providing suggestions about possible policy and guideline changes to ensure that co-authoring decisions are fair, valid (in the sense of rewarding actual contribution), and minimize exploitation. We will develop cases that can be used in graduate teaching so that researchers can give some consideration to these important career issues before they become active in collaborative projects. By focusing on the relationship of collaboration outcomes to race and gender, it is possible that the researchers will be able to provide information that will increase the retention of underrepresented group members pursuing scientific careers.
This project investigates the dynamics of research collaboration, especially those related to academic journal publishing. This project seeks to understand the manifest outcomes of co-author crediting but also indicators of individual contribution, such as author order and published statements about particular individuals’ contributions. There are many conceptual studies and case studies of the social and organizational processes by which researchers make decisions about contributions, credit sharing and authorship shared credit. However , systematic, large sample, studies remain scarce , hence this work’s contribution. We surveyed 641 non-medical academic researchers in science and technology disciplines in US doctoral research universities (Carnegie Doctoral/Research Universities—High). Faculty researchers in engineering, biology, chemistry, physics, mathematics, computer science, and economics participated in the survey. We received a 36% response rate, with respondents being very similar to the population in terms of gender, rank and departmental discipline. In addition, we conducted one-on-one interviews in person or by telephone with faculty researchers across the country in these same disciplines. Two key results are notable. First, discussions about contributorship at the beginning of a research project are found to be associated with fewer contributorship problems as the project proceeds. Second, 40% of respondents had a co-author sometime in their career who made no contribution at all to the research.
