Measuring dissatisfaction with coauthorship: An empirical approach based on the researchers’ perception

• Published in: Journal of informetrics 2019-11, Vol.13 (4), p.100980, Article 100980
• Main Authors: Gómez-Ferri, Javier, González-Alcaide, Gregorio, LLopis-Goig, Ramón
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Authorship; Research collaboration; Scientific misconduct; Scientific publications
• ISSN: 1751-1577; 1875-5879
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joi.2019.100980

•We have found that the figures regarding co-authorship problems are lower than those given by most previous studies.•Co-authorship dissatisfaction is higher in both Health and Social Sciences.•Researchers in lower academic rank are more dissatisfied with co-authorship publications.•Women scientists are more dissatisfied with co-authorship than their male colleagues. Increasing levels of collaboration constitute one of the characteristics of science. However, the knowledge production system is based on a fundamental discordance: on the one hand, it is cooperative in nature, with links articulated through coauthorships, and on the other, the systems for assigning merit and distributing rewards function on an individual scale. This contradiction can give rise to dysfunction and inappropriate practices. This study analyses researchers’ perceptions about the problems associated with authorship in scientific publications. We make use of a coauthorship dissatisfaction index that measures the degree of dissatisfaction with the author order on the byline, ghost authors, and unjustified authorship. There are differences in this regard according to the branch of knowledge, status in the academic hierarchy, and sex. Using a sample of 2344 university researchers, we observed an overall dissatisfaction rate of 12.4%. The highest rates were in the areas of Health Sciences and Social Sciences, in early-stage career academics, and in women. The cognizant authorities should take steps to regulate authorship, tailoring rules to each area of knowledge, with an eye toward reducing discrimination, gender bias, and abuse of authority.