Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Relying on data collected by the Zurich Survey of Academics (ZSoA), a unique representative online survey among academics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), this paper replicates Johann and Mayer's (Minerva 57(2):175-196, 2019) analysis of researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship and expands their scope. The primary goals of the study at hand are to learn more about (a) country differences in perceptions of scientific authorship, as well as (b) the influence of perceived publication pressure on authorship perceptions. The results indicate that academics in Switzerland interpret scientific authorship more leniently than their colleagues in Germany and Austria. The findings further indicate that, as perceived pressure to publish increases, researchers are more likely to belong to a group of academics who hold the view that any type of contribution/task justifies co-authorship, including even those contributions/tasks that do not justify co-authorship according to most authorship guidelines. In summary, the present study suggests that action is required to harmonize regulations for scientific authorship and to improve the research culture.

Automated summary

Based on data collected by the Zurich Survey of Academics, this paper replicates and expands the analysis of researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship. The findings suggest that academics in Switzerland have a more lenient interpretation of scientific authorship compared to their colleagues in Germany and Austria. Additionally, it was found that as perceived publication pressure increases, researchers are more likely to believe that any type of contribution justifies co-authorship, even if it goes against most authorship guidelines. Overall, this study highlights the need for harmonizing regulations for scientific authorship and improving the research culture.