Coauthorship in physics

Area of Science:

• Scientific ethics
• Publication practices
• Academic research

Background:

• Scientific coauthorship is a complex issue with evolving ethical standards.
• Guidelines for authorship vary across institutions and journals, leading to potential discrepancies.
• Ensuring appropriate credit and contribution in scientific publications is crucial for research integrity.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate the perceptions of American Physical Society (APS) members regarding the appropriateness of coauthorship on scientific papers.
• To assess the impact of different authorship guidelines on the perceived validity of coauthorship.
• To understand the prevalence of scientists rejecting undeserving coauthorship claims.

Main Methods:

• A large-scale survey was conducted among members of the American Physical Society (APS).
• Participants were asked to evaluate the number of appropriate coauthors on their most recent publication.
• Respondents' views on authorship guidelines and personal experiences with authorship disputes were collected.

Main Results:

• First and second coauthors were generally considered more appropriate than subsequent coauthors.
• The probability of third and subsequent coauthors being inappropriate was 23% under APS guidelines, 67% under ICMJE guidelines, and 59% under a direct contribution guideline.
• Only 3% of respondents reported personally rejecting an undeserving coauthor.

Conclusions:

• There is a significant divergence in how scientists perceive coauthorship appropriateness, particularly for later authors.
• Current guidelines, including those from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), may not fully align with members' perceptions.
• The low rate of personally rejecting undeserving authors suggests a reluctance or difficulty in addressing authorship disputes directly.