Consortium Authorship: Ethical Tensions in Emerging Authorship Practices in Interdisciplinary Collaborative Research

Area of Science:

• Scientific communication
• Research ethics
• Academic publishing

Background:

• Traditional authorship models are strained by large-scale, collaborative scientific research.
• Many listed authors in fields like biomedicine do not meet traditional contribution and accountability criteria.
• The rise of team science necessitates new approaches to acknowledging contributions.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the viability of consortium authorship (group/team authorship) as an emerging practice.
• To explore the normative and ethical dimensions of consortium authorship.
• To understand how consortium authorship is currently handled in academic journals, particularly in biomedicine.

Main Methods:

• Literature review on academic authorship and team science.
• Case study analysis of experiences within a research consortium.
• Deliberative workshop on consortium authorship.
• Analysis of journal practices in biomedical fields.

Main Results:

• Consortium authorship offers practical benefits and acknowledges the value of collaboration.
• Ethical questions arise regarding the accountability of consortium authors for the entire work.
• Consortium authorship is most effective when combined with individual authorship.

Conclusions:

• Consortium authorship presents a viable, though complex, model for scientific collaboration.
• This practice challenges traditional notions of academic authorship, prompting a re-evaluation.
• Donna Haraway's concept of sympoiesis provides a framework for rethinking authorship in collaborative science.