Article Text
Abstract
Kovacs argues that honorary authorship and regarding each co-author of multi-authored papers as if they were sole authors when the performance of researchers is being evaluated by their publications mean that we should require authors to identify what proportion of each publication should be attributed to each co-author. Even if such attributions could be made reliably, such a change should not be made. Contributions to authorship cannot be validly quantified, and the relative merits of different publications are also neither equal nor validly quantifiable. Research administrators need to recognise that whatever criteria they adopt to evaluate the performance of researchers, researchers will find a way to game the system in order to maximise their personal benefit.
- Policy Guidelines/Inst. Review Boards/Review Cttes.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Linked Articles
- Research ethics
- Research ethics
- Research ethics
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey
- Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo)honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article
- Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings
- Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors
- Response to the commentaries of Melissa S Anderson and Murray J Dyck
- Science journal editors’ views on publication ethics: results of an international survey
- Non-existent authors
- Have ignorance and abuse of authorship criteria decreased over the past 15 years?
- Should authorship on scientific publications be treated as a right?
- Authorship policies of scientific journals