Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vjeb20
Download by: [Universitas Maritim Raja Ali Haji] Date: 11 January 2016, At: 19:25
Journal of Education for Business
ISSN: 0883-2323 (Print) 1940-3356 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjeb20
A Comparison of the Views of College of Business
Deans and Faculty on Undeserved Authorships
Jennifer L. Flanagan
To cite this article: Jennifer L. Flanagan (2015) A Comparison of the Views of College of Business Deans and Faculty on Undeserved Authorships, Journal of Education for Business, 90:5, 241-246, DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1027163
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08832323.2015.1027163
Published online: 16 Apr 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 30
View related articles
A Comparison of the Views of College of Business
Deans and Faculty on Undeserved Authorships
Jennifer L. Flanagan
Texas A&M University-Commerce, Commerce, Texas, USA
Deans and faculty at Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business-accredited colleges of business were surveyed on the extent and impact of the occurrence of undeserved authorships in business journal articles. Eighty percent of the deans and faculty responding acknowledged the occurrence of undeserved authorships in published business journal articles. There were disagreements on the extent of occurrence, with the deans reporting a lower rate of occurrence than faculty. Deans also indicated less impact of undeserved authorships on promotions, tenure awards, and merit increases than did faculty. With the strong increase in pressure to publish in order to be promoted, colleges of business need to be aware of the possibility of undeserved authorships.
Keywords: authorship, business faculty, faculty publications, undeserved authorship
Having articles accepted by professional and/or academic publications by faculty researchers is one of the main keys to career success in many higher education institutions; rewards for publication include receiving tenure, promo-tion, increased salaries, and elevated respect among peers and industry/professional leaders. In pursuit of such accom-plishments, faculty members often collaborate to get articles published in quality, if not stellar, publications. The ethical implications of undeserved authorships, also referred to as gift or unearned authorships, can mean earn-ing such rewards and prestige, without actually puttearn-ing forth the effort or producing quality and meaningful work. Here I seek to compare two studies on this matter and address some key points in the findings. Consequently, the ultimate goal of this research is to improve the processes for which publications are based, and, in turn, re-examine how faculty, administration, students, and professionals in the area define what constitutes an author of a publication.
Definition of Authorship
Authorshipis universally defined as “1) the identity of the person who has written something; 2) the source of a piece of writing; 3) the state or act of writing, creating, or
causing” (Merriam-Webster, 2015). So does this mean that just collaborating on a piece of work is enough to claim authorship, and does that work need validation through a process, such a publication? And, how is authorship defined in academic circles?
There is not a lot of empirical research on authorship, or what actually are the defining characteristics of the term, with regard to academic publications. The American Psy-chological Association’s (APA) revised Ethical Principles and Code of Conduct says that credit for authorship is “only for work they have actually performed or to which they have substantially contributed” and that “principal author-ship and other publication credits accurately reflect the rela-tive scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as depart-ment chair, does not justify authorship credit” (APA, 2002, p. 11). But there aren’t clear standards on what constitutes a significant contribution. Some research has addressed how faculty and coauthors work together to make decisions regarding authorship credits, finding that even explicit agreements about authorships led to many of the parties involved not completely satisfied with the outcome of the coauthorship decision, even with guidelines in place (Geelhoed, Phillips, Fischer, Shpungin, & Gong, 2007). A 2005 study by Sandler and Russell reported undeserved or unethical author credits were given 27% of the time on pub-lished works, mostly through author inflation. Bartle, Fink, and Hayes (2000) found in their study that the most Correspondence should be addressed to Jennifer L. Flanagan, Texas
A&M University-Commerce, Department of Management, P. O. Box 3011, Commerce, TX 75429–3011, USA. E-mail: jennifer. flanagan@tamuc.edu
ISSN: 0883-2323 print / 1940-3356 online DOI: 10.1080/08832323.2015.1027163
important criteria for earning authorship surrounded the writing and idea generation and design process and devel-opment, with the data collection and faculty status/seniority having less to little importance.
The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has four main criteria on which to base authorship:
1) Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; 2) drafting the work or revising it criti-cally for important intellectual content; 3) final approval of the version to be published; and, 4) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. (Inter-national Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 2015)
Harvard Medical School has a set of six criteria to define authorship:
1) Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work. For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or inter-pretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable. Acquisition of funding and provision of techni-cal services, patients, or materials, while they may be essen-tial to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship; 2) everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be an author. Everyone who has made other substan-tial contributions should be acknowledged; 3) when research is done by teams whose members are highly spe-cialized, individuals’ contributions and responsibility may be limited to specific aspects of the work; 4) all authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version; 5) one author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an in-depth understanding of every part of the work; and, 6) this primary author should assure that all authors meet basic standards for authorship and should prepare a concise, written description of their contri-butions to the work, which has been approved by all authors. This record should remain with the sponsoring department. (Harvard Medical School, 1999)
Washington University in St. Louis defines authorship for their faculty as those who participate in the “drafting, reviewing, and/or revising of the manuscript for intellectual content” (Washington University in St. Louis, 2009). They also state that there are certain aspects that are no included or do not define a researcher as an author, such as general supervisor of the research team (or any administrative rela-tionship), or collection of data, acquiring the proper funding for research (Washington University in St. Louis, 2009).
Importance of Authorship
The growing accreditation requirements mission and goal realignment encompassing higher education in recent years has, in part, led to a significant increase in the pressure from deans and administration for faculty to participate in scholarly endeavors and publishing efforts. Universities have established a research component within their mis-sions and goals and accrediting agencies have incorporated faculty research endeavors into their criteria. Indeed, research has been referred to as the currency of the realm for most universities since it has become the primary factor in promotion, tenure, and hiring decisions (Gelman & Gibelman, 1999).
There are valid reasons for working with another faculty member in order to successfully conduct research and pres-ent the results in a published work. With the rapid growth in the knowledge of the various disciplines, it may make sense to add another scholar who complements the knowl-edge and skills of the researcher in a specific study. Perhaps several business disciplines, or even disciplines external to business, may be involved in a study requiring the addition of an expert from another field. In many instances the addi-tion of an expert in statistics, quantitative methods, or in programming or software skills may be justifiably added as a coauthor on a study. The knowledge of properly docu-menting and preparing a paper for publication may deserve an authorship position. These would represent appropriate coauthorship arrangements and would most likely result in improved research results and reports.
However, could there be instances where an author of an article includes as a coauthor a person who actually did no work or very little work and who does not deserve to be cited as a coauthor? Could the pressures to publish intensified by changes in university missions and the increased emphasis in accreditation criteria have brought about the gifting of author-ships in order to enhance academic careers? In some cases, that is a truism, but, there may well be other reasons: (a) supe-riors may apply pressure to be listed on a work, (b) disserta-tion advisors may seek to be identified on an article undeservedly, and (c) colleges of business may improperly emphasize coauthoring as a means to increase faculty publi-cation counts for accreditation purposes.
There are potential issues with multiauthor publications in relation to authorship credit, for instance, that some fac-ulty taking credit for authorship clearly earned by others, and the assumption that the second, third, and so on author-ship credits contribute very little to the publications, earn-ing an undeserved authorship (Fine & Kurdek, 2003).
Undeserved Authorship in Business Publications
In the last half of the 20th century there was a tremendous growth in coauthorship in business journals. In the 1960s the single author prevailed but, by 2000, the coauthorship
242 J. L. FLANAGAN
arrangement was the most significant form of authorship in business journal articles (Manton & English, 2008). Has the increased pressure to research and publish has pushed faculty collaboration on articles in order to increase their productivity records? And if this is true, has the collabora-tion been an honest representacollabora-tion of the published work? Or are there cases of misrepresentation in authorship identi-fication in business journal articles?
Two recent studies have raised a question on the possibil-ity of undeserved coauthorships in business journals. Do all authors identified on a business journal article deserve to be cited? These studies indicate that 80% of both the faculty and the deans of colleges of business were aware of a situation where a faculty member was carried on a published article. Most of the deans indicated that the practice was rare (Manton & English, 2011). However, in at least one study, more than one-fourth of the faculty reported that the practice is either extensive or very extensive (Manton, English, & Brodnax, 2012).
Purpose of the Study
This study is intended to analyze and compare the findings of two previous published studies on the subject of unde-served authorships. The studies were the following:
“College of Business Faculty Views on Gift Author-ships in Business Journals” (Manton et al., 2012); and “College of Business Deans’ Views on Undeserved Authorships in Business Journals” (Manton & English, 2011).
Both studies dealt with the perceptions of the extent of the occurrence of undeserved coauthorship in business journals and the impact of such publications on the faculty reward sys-tem. One dealt with the views of the faculty and the second with the views of the deans. The same questions and responses were included in both questionnaires. The tables presented in this article contain data from the previous studies and are used to compare the dean’s views with those of the faculty.
METHODOLOGY
The deans and the faculty of one fourth of the 440, or 110, of the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Busi-ness International–accredited schools of busiBusi-ness in 2011 were surveyed in their respective studies. The schools were systematically selected. The deans were mailed a question-naire and they responded by mail in a addressed return envelope. The faculty were contacted by email and responded to a questionnaire sent by Zoomerang (Palo Alto, CA), an online survey specialty company. Participat-ing in the respective surveys were 125 deans and 698 fac-ulty members. The results of these surveys and their
findings have been published separately. With this study it was my intent to compare the results of these surveys and discuss the comparisons. The chi-square test was used to compare the responses between the deans and the faculty for any statistically significant differences.
FINDINGS
Backgrounds of the Respondents
The deans were an experienced group. More than 76% had 20 or more years in education and 25% had more than 10 years experience as a dean. Males represented 79% of the respondents. About 28% had major fields in manage-ment or managemanage-ment related fields. As for the faculty, 66% were men and 88% had tenure or were tenure track. About 70% had more than 10 years of higher education experience and 68% were either full or associate professors.
Study Results
The deans and the faculty were asked in their respective studies whether they had ever been aware of a faculty mem-ber being carried by a colleague on a published article. Eighty percent of both groups indicated that they had been aware of this occurring. Only 8.8% of the deans and 12% of the faculty indicated that they were not aware of this occur-ring (Table 1).
The members of both groups who indicated they were aware of undeserved authorships were asked how extensive the practice. Half of the 100 deans stated that it is rare, with only 5% reporting that the practice is extensive or very extensive. In contrast, 27% of the 561 faculty reported that the extent of gifting authorships is extensive or very extensive and only 22% indicated that it is rare (Table 2).
Impact on Merit Increases
Consideration was given to the deans and the faculty per-ceptions on the impact of gifting an authorship on the spe-cific rewards available to faculty—salary merit increases, promotions, and awarding of tenure. Of particular interest was the percentage of respondents indicating that it
TABLE 1
Coauthor Carried by a Colleague on a Published Journal Article
Deans Faculty
Response Number % Number %
Yes 100 80.0 561 80.0
No 11 8.8 83 12.0
Don’t know 14 11.2 54 8.0
Total 125 100.0 698 100.0
occurred more than 10% of the time (see Table 3). Only 11% of the deans feel that more than 10% of salary merit increases are at least partially affected by undeserved authorships. In contrast, 28% of the faculty indicated that more than 10% of salary merit increases are at least par-tially affected by undeserved authorships of business jour-nal articles. Seventy-two percent of the deans indicated that 10% or fewer of faculty salary merit increases are at least partially due to undeserved authorships, while 39% of the faculty feels this way.
It is worthwhile to note that 31% of the faculty stated that they do not know versus only 17% of the deans (Table 3).
Impact on Promotions
The perception of the impact of undeserved authorships on promotions was also considered. Again considering more than 10% of occurrences, only 10% of the deans indicated that more than 10% of promotions were at least partially due to undeserved authorships. Thirty percent of the faculty indicated that more than 10% of faculty promotions were due at least partially to undeserved authorships (see Table 4). Seventy-three percent of the deans’ report that
10% or fewer of promotions are partially due to undeserved authorship is compared to 42% of faculty (Table 4).
Impact on Tenure
Considering tenure, the figures are similar to salary merit increases and promotions. Only 9% of the deans feel that more than 10% of tenure awards are at least partially due to undeserved authorships, while the figure for the faculty on this specific issue is 31%. Seventy-three percent of the deans feel that 10% or fewer of tenure awards are affected at least partially by undeserved authorships and correspond-ing the figure for faculty stands at 43% (see Table 5).
Other Considerations
All of the deans and the faculty were asked about their views on the ethics of undeserved coauthorships. Seventy-four percent of the deans feel that it is unethical and should not be done compared to 53% of the faculty who express the same feeling.
One startling finding was that 11% of the deans indicate that, although giving undeserved authorship credit is an unethical practice, it is an accepted practice, the way things TABLE 2
Extent of Gifting Authorships
Deans Faculty
Extent Number % Number %
Very extensive 2 2 58 10
Extensive 3 3 97 17
Somewhat extensive 41 41 217 39
Rare 50 50 121 22
Don’t know 4 4 67 12
No response 0 0 1 <1
Total 100 100 561 100
TABLE 3
Percentage of Faculty Merit Increases Due or Partially Due to an Undeserved Publication Record
Deans Faculty
Percentage of merit
increases Number % Number %
0% 10 10 12 2
Total 100 100 561 100
TABLE 4
Percentage of Faculty Promotions Due or Partially Due to an Unde-served Publication Record
Deans Faculty
Percentage of promotions Number % Number %
0% 19 19 19 5
Total 100 100 561 100
TABLE 5
Percentage of Tenure Status Awards Due or Partially Due to an Undeserved Publication Record
Deans Faculty
Percentage of tenure
status awards Number % Number %
0% 20 20 26 5
Total 100 100 561 100
244 J. L. FLANAGAN
are done. Twenty-two percent of the faculty shared this view. Smaller percentages of both groups indicate that it is an acceptable practice (Table 6).
Both groups were queried as to their feelings on whether there should be guidelines established for appropriately identifying authors on business journal articles. There was substantial agreement on this point between the deans and the faculty. About half of both groups indicated that such guidelines should be established (Table 7).
The highest percentage of deans, 37%, stated that faculty authors should establish the guidelines for identifying authors while only 20% of the faculty agreed. Thirty-nine percent of the faculty indicated that the business journal editors should perform this task, while 33% of the deans agreed (Table 8).
Limitations of These Studies
A major weakness of the two major studies compared in article is that the data is not organized in a way that com-pared Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Busi-ness college type, such as using the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, n.d.). This framework for the classification of higher education intuitions groups comparable schools for educational and research purposes. Future researchers should organize schools in a similar fashion, and then analyze deans and faculty from compara-ble intuitions to see if significant results are produced.
Additionally, future researchers should focus on what fac-ulty and administration deem as deserved or underserved authorship.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of two studies dealing with the perceptions of the extent and impact of undeserved authorships in business journal articles were compared and analyzed in this study. One study dealt with the views of the college of business deans and the other study concerned the views of faculty.
Eighty percent of both the deans and the faculty indi-cated an awareness of a coauthor on a business journal arti-cle that performed little or no work on the project and, therefore, was not deserving of being cited as an author. However, there is disagreement on the extent of such occur-rences between the deans and the faculty, with 17% of fac-ulty feeling that the practice is extensive or very extensive, compared to only 5% of the deans.
There were also significant differences between the deans and the faculty members upon the impact of unde-served authorships on salary merit increases, promotions and the awarding of tenure. Only 11%, 10%, and 9% of the deans felt that undeserved authorships played a role in more than 10% of merit increases, promotions, and tenure, respectively. This compared to 28% of the faculty on merit increases, 30% on promotions, and 31% on tenure awards, indicating that more than 10% of these awards were due at least partially to undeserved authorship positions on business journal articles.
Although the majority of deans and faculty surveyed felt undeserved authorships should not occur, 75% and 53%, respectively, 11% of the deans and 22% of the faculty indi-cated that this unethical practice is just the way things are done. In comparing the deans’ and the faculty members’ views on undeserved authorships, the deans’ indicated a rel-atively low extent of occurrence and a low impact upon the faculty reward system. This too is surprising because the TABLE 6
Views on Undeserved Coauthorships
Deans Faculty
View Number % Number %
It’s unethical and should not be done.
93 74 371 53
It’s unethical, but it’s the way things are done.
14 11 153 22
It’s an acceptable practice. 4 3 56 8
Other 14 11 118 17
Total 125 99 698 100
TABLE 7
Should There Be Guidelines Appropriately Identifying Authors on Business Journal Articles?
Deans Faculty
Response Number % Number %
Yes 57 46 315 53
No 45 36 153 22
No opinion 23 18 56 8
No response 0 0 118 17
Total 125 100 698 100
TABLE 8
Who Should Be Responsible for Developing Guidelines?
Deans Faculty
Responsible parties Number % Number %
Journal editors 19 33 122 39
The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business
8 14 73 23
Faculty authors 21 37 63 20
Business deans 5 9 35 11
Other university administrators 0 0 1 0
Others 4 7 19 6
No response 0 0 2 <1
Total 57 100 315 100
deans have a major responsibility in implementing the fac-ulty reward system and in determining salary increases, promotions, and tenure. They are also responsible for reporting faculty productivity to upper administration and to accrediting bodies. Perhaps there are attempts at puffing the reports on faculty scholarly endeavors. The citation of undeserved authorships would serve to boost faculty pro-ductivity reports.
Faculty members depend on publications to enhance their chances at tenure, raises, and promotions—it is truly a publish or perish aspect of higher education. Quality publi-cations not only lead to recognition for the author(s), but also for the respective universities. Undeserved authorships most certainly have led to unmerited salary increases, pro-motions, and awards of tenure, and this comparison of the two studies clearly indicates the need for further study on this matter, especially in how it impacts faculty and deans. Consequently, colleges of business should accurately gauge the contributions of each author to an article and reward them appropriately in accordance with their respective contributions.
The first task is to determine, within the individual col-leges, universities, and disciplines, what constitutes author-ship. Once firm and universally accepted, guidelines are established, faculty and deans are able to work to publish legitimately credited research that benefits both faculty and the discipline.
REFERENCES
American Psychological Association (APA). (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.American Psychologist,57, 1060– 1073.
Bartle, S. A., Fink, A. A., & Hayes, B. C. (2000). Psychology of the scien-tist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding authorship issues in psychological pub-lications.Psychological Reports,86, 771–788.
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (n.d.).The Carne-gie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/
Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (2003). Reflections on determining author-ship credit and authorauthor-ship order on faculty–student collaborations. In A. Kazdin (Ed.),Methodological issues and strategies in clinical research
(3rd ed., pp. 791–805). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Geelhoed, R., Phillips, J., Fischer, A., Shpungin, E., & Gong, Y. (2007). Authorship decision making: An empirical investigation. Ethics & Behavior,17, 95–115.
Gelman, S. R., & Gibelman, N. (1999). A quest for citations? An analysis of and commentary on the trend toward multiple authorship.Journal of Social Work Education,35, 203–215.
Harvard Medical School. (1999). Authorship guidelines: Authorship. Retrieved from http://hms.harvard.edu/about-hms/integrity-academic-med icine/hms-policy/faculty-policies-integrity-science/authorship-guidelines International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2015).Defining the
role of authors and contributors. Retrieved from http://www.icmje.org/ recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html
Manton, E. J., & English, D. E. (2008). The growth of scholarly collabora-tion in business journals. Journal of Faculty Development, 22(2), 118–124.
Manton, E. J., & English, D. E. (2011). College of business deans’ views on undeserved authorship in business journals. Journal of Faculty Development,25(2), 5–11.
Manton, E. J., English, D. E., & Brodnax, T. B. (2012). College of business faculty views on gift authorships in business journals.Journal of Educa-tion for Business,87, 1–7.
Merriam-Webster. (2015). Authorship. Retrieved from http://www.mer riam-webster.com/dictionary/authorship
Sandler, J. C., & Russell, B. L. (2005). Faculty-student collaborations: Ethics and satisfaction in authorship credit.Ethics and Behavior,15, 65–80.
Washington University in St. Louis. (2009).Policy for authorship on sci-entific and scholarly publications. Retrieved from http://wustl.edu/poli cies/authorship.html
246 J. L. FLANAGAN
