Search

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Goddiksen et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Minimal research has been done to determine how well European nursing students understand the core principles of academic integrity and how often they deviate from good academic practice. Aim: The aim of this study was to find out what educational needs nursing students have in terms of academic integrity. Research design: A quantitative cross-sectional study in the form of a survey of nursing students was conducted via questionnaire in the fall of 2020. Participants: The sample was composed of 79 students in the BScN and MScN programs at Zürich University of Applied Sciences. Ethical considerations: An application for a non-competence clearance was approved by the Ethics Committee in Zurich (BASEC No. Req-2020-00868). The survey was anonymous, and informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Results: The participants had a high level of confidence in their own knowledge but were in many cases unable to correctly identify clear-cut examples of misconduct and to differentiate them from questionable practices. About 13% of the participants admitted that during their university education they had copied shorter passages from other sources into their own text without marking them as quotes. Conclusions: The study documents extensive knowledge gaps among nursing students regarding both academic misconduct and questionable practices and indicates a need for improved academic integrity training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]