Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Coauthorship in physics.

Eugen Tarnow1

  • 1etarnow@avabiz.com

Science and Engineering Ethics
|July 3, 2002
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

A survey of American Physical Society (APS) members found that later coauthors are often deemed inappropriate. Most scientists have not personally rejected undeserving coauthors, indicating differing views on authorship ethics.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Short term memory bowing effect is consistent with presentation rate dependent decay.

Cognitive neurodynamics·2011
Same author

There is no capacity limited buffer in the Murdock (1962) free recall data.

Cognitive neurodynamics·2011
Same author

Short term memory may be the depletion of the readily releasable pool of presynaptic neurotransmitter vesicles of a metastable long term memory trace pattern.

Cognitive neurodynamics·2009
Same author

Response probability and response time: a straight line, the Tagging/Retagging interpretation of short term memory, an operational definition of meaningfulness and short term memory time decay and search time.

Cognitive neurodynamics·2008
Same author

Proactive interference, retroactive interference--what about self-interference? A new interpretation of the recency-primacy shift.

MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine·2005
Same author

Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survery-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline.

MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine·2004
Same journal

Not Another Grocery List: Proposals for an Effective AI Ethics Implementation.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

From Biopiracy to Sustainable Knowledge Governance: Epistemic Justice and the Reconstruction of Resource Sovereignty in the Global South.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Deliberative Lab Communication and the Practice of Ethical Science.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Graduate Students Find Content of Responsible Conduct of Research Coursework Useful.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Discursive Ethics as a Normative Foundation for Integrating Ethics into AI Clinical Decision Support Systems.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
Same journal

Tragedies of Technology: An Exploration of Such Narratives.

Science and engineering ethics·2026
See all related articles

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).

Related Experiment Videos

  • 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.