In this episode we discuss authorship in academic research; the core aspects of recognizing contributions to scientific research, and all challenges related to this. Why is authorship such an important issue in science? How do you determine all authors on a paper? What is a significant contribution? What are the consequences of becoming an author? Where do issues mostly arise and what can we do to avoid them?  

Together with Ben Nemery, Emeritus Professor in Medicine and Toxicology at the Centre for Environment and Health within the Department of Public Health and Primary Care of the Medical Faculty of the KU Leuven and Kevin De Moortel, Tenure Track Professor of Digital Entrepreneurship & Innovation in the department of Business Technology and Operations (BUTO) of VUB’s Faculty of Social Sciences and Solvay Business School, we try to find some answers to these challenging questions.  

In this episode, we cover

• What is authorship?
• What is a substantial contribution?
• The importance of authorship within the broader research climate
• Struggles considering authorship and integrity
• Good practices concerning determining authorship
• How to discuss authorship with your colleagues
• How te deal with authorship disputes

----------------------------------------------------------------

This podcast series complements the online training tool 'Mind the GAP, training on Good Academic Practices'. Mind the GAP is an English-language training tool for all researchers and those involved in research, from PhD students to more experienced researchers, to teachers and policy makers.  

If you are affiliated with a Flemish university you can find the tool on your institution’s educational platform: 

Ghent University: Ufora  

KU Leuven: Toledo 

University of Antwerp: Blackboard 

Hasselt University: Blackboard  

Vrije Universiteit Brussel: Canvas 

Not part of the above institutions? Go to https://mindthegap.vlir.be/ and follow the international version of the tool (condensed version).   

The Mind the GAP Podcast was jointly developed by VLIR (Flemish Interuniversity Council – Filip Colson) and the five Flemish universities (Ghent University – Stefanie Van der Burght; KU Leuven – Wouter Vandevelde; University of Antwerp – Marianne De Voecht; Hasselt University – Stephanie Ruysschaert; Vrije Universiteit Brussel – Klara Swalus) and was financed by the Flemish government. It was produced by podcast agency De Praeters and hosted by Elisa Nelissen (KU Leuven). 

Connect with us: https://mindthegap.vlir.be/

----------------------------------------------------------------

Resources mentioned

ALLEA (2023). The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity: Revised Edition 2023. Berlin. DOI 10.26356/ECOC       

Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) https://credit.niso.org/

Key Takeaways

• Deciding on authorship is a hard thing and can involve various forms of potential misconduct.
• Authorship has always been important in science. This has only increased as it is now the coin for promotion. With this, the number of related issues increased, making authorship issues most files within the commissions for research integrity.
• Learning how to handle the determining of authorship from a promotor is most valuable.
• The contribution to justify authorship should be substantial, intellectual and is in no way quantifiable.
• There’re 4 conditions to meet before becoming an author.
• Ignoring contributions is not a good research practice.
• Research is a collective exercise, in general, and so is authorship. It’s an exercise in democracy.
• Authorship roles such as CRediT is a safer way of determining contributions (use it!), but it doesn’t solve all issues.
• Responsibility for the (content) of the article and the integrity of the other coauthors is part of being an author and should be accepted by all authors involved.
• Discuss authorship issues at an early stage and keep them updated throughout the making of the article, in an agreement.
• In case of conflict, people can file a report to the commissions for research integrity but it’s more important to prevent this by talking to contact points, ombuds persons, ... .
• The atmosphere in the work environment co-determines the occurrence of authorship issues. Toxic leadership increases the probability of these issues happening.
• The focus on metrics in researcher evaluation (number of publications, factor analyses, ...) has an impact on the occurrence of authorship issues. Good evaluation boards will now focus more on the quality of papers.
• The content of your paper is more likely to make a difference than you as an author.
• Think strategically about what you want to be known for (your expertise) and the quality of your work.