Navigating Authorship Order: Ethics, Contribution, and Student-Faculty Collaborations

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association – 7th Edition – 9781433832178 – Page 85 Review

“and for specifying the order in which two or more authors’ names appear in the byline. Principal authorship and the order of authorship credit should accurately reflect the relative contributions of persons involved (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit). Relative status (e.g., department chair, junior faculty member, student) should not determine the order of authorship. The general rule is that the name of the principal contributor appears first, with subsequent names appearing in order of decreasing contribution. In some cases, another principal contributor appears last. These conventions can vary from field to field and from journal to journal. Novice authors are advised to contact the editor of the journal to which they are submitting a manuscript for guidance. If authors played equal roles in the research and publication of their study, they may wish to note this in the author note (see Section 2.7).”

This passage highlights the critical importance of ethical authorship practices in academic publishing, specifically focusing on the assignment and ordering of authorship. The core principle emphasizes that authorship should be a direct reflection of an individual’s contribution to the research and subsequent publication. It underscores the need for transparency and fairness in acknowledging the contributions of each person involved in a scholarly work.

The text explicitly states that “Principal authorship and the order of authorship credit should accurately reflect the relative contributions of persons involved (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12b, Publication Credit).” This statement is a cornerstone of ethical publishing. It means that the order in which authors are listed should not be based on factors such as seniority, institutional power, or personal relationships. Instead, the primary determining factor should be the level of intellectual input, practical involvement, and overall contribution to the research project. This principle is particularly crucial in collaborative research environments where individuals may have varying levels of experience or status.

The passage goes on to clarify that “Relative status (e.g., department chair, junior faculty member, student) should not determine the order of authorship.” This point is critical in addressing potential power imbalances within academic institutions. A department chair or senior faculty member may have provided resources, guidance, or access to facilities, but if their intellectual contribution to the specific research project is less significant than that of a junior colleague or student, their position in the author list should reflect that. The emphasis here is on meritocracy and ensuring that credit is given where it is due, regardless of an individual’s position within the academic hierarchy.

The text lays out a general guideline: “The general rule is that the name of the principal contributor appears first, with subsequent names appearing in order of decreasing contribution. In some cases, another principal contributor appears last.” This is a widely accepted convention in many academic fields. The first author is typically considered to be the person who made the most significant contribution to the research, whether it was in the conception of the study, the design of the methodology, the data analysis, or the writing of the manuscript. The subsequent authors are then listed in descending order of their contribution. The option of placing a “principal contributor” last often signifies a senior researcher who played a vital oversight or mentoring role, even if they weren’t directly involved in all aspects of the research. This convention can sometimes vary between fields, with the last author position sometimes reserved for the principal investigator of the grant that funded the work.

The passage acknowledges the variations in authorship conventions: “These conventions can vary from field to field and from journal to journal.” Different disciplines may have slightly different norms regarding authorship. For example, in some fields, the second author may have a specific role, such as statistical analysis. Similarly, different journals may have their own specific guidelines regarding authorship order and contribution statements. It is therefore crucial for authors to be aware of the specific conventions of their field and the requirements of the journal to which they are submitting.

Given the potential for confusion, the text provides practical advice: “Novice authors are advised to contact the editor of the journal to which they are submitting a manuscript for guidance.” This is a valuable suggestion for researchers, particularly those who are new to the publishing process. Journal editors are generally willing to provide clarification on authorship guidelines and address any questions or concerns that authors may have. It is better to seek clarification beforehand than to make assumptions that could lead to ethical violations or misunderstandings.

The passage offers a solution for situations where contributions are truly equal: “If authors played equal roles in the research and publication of their study, they may wish to note this in the author note (see Section 2.7).” When multiple authors have made equally significant contributions to a study, it is appropriate to indicate this in the author note. This can be done by stating that the authors contributed equally to the work. Some journals may also allow authors to specify the specific contributions of each individual, even if they are considered equal. This helps to provide greater transparency and clarity regarding the roles played by each author.

The next section of the text deals with a specific, yet crucial, scenario: “Professional–Student Collaborations. Because doctoral work is expected to result in an independent and original contribution to the field by the student, except under rare circumstances, the student should be listed as the principal author of any papers with multiple authors that are substantially based on their dissertation (APA Ethics Code Standard 8.12c, Publication Credit).” This emphasizes the ethical responsibility of mentors to prioritize the student’s intellectual ownership of their dissertation research.

The passage reinforces the student’s rightful place: “Unusual exceptions to doctoral student first authorship might occur when the dissertation is published as part of a collection of studies involving other…” (This portion is incomplete in the original text but implies situations where the dissertation is significantly interwoven with broader research projects).

In conclusion, the excerpt emphasizes the paramount importance of ethical authorship practices. It emphasizes that authorship should be based on genuine contribution and that the order of authorship should accurately reflect the level of involvement. It also acknowledges the complexities of authorship in collaborative research settings and offers practical guidance for navigating these challenges. By adhering to these principles, researchers can ensure that credit is given where it is due, and that the integrity of the scientific record is maintained.

📘 Buy full ebook $25 only: https://www.lulu.com/shop/american-psychological-association/publication-manual-of-the-american-psychological-association/ebook/product-vq6e7z.html?q=Publication+Manual+of+the+American+Psychological+Association+7th+Edition&page=1&pageSize=4