Mary M Hausfeld of the University of Limerick examines how the process by which researchers receive credit for their work can be difficult for women.
Scientific discoveries rarely happen in isolation. Modern research often involves teams that span institutions and even countries. But when research is published in academic journals, credit is relegated to a list of names — a list that can shape careers.
Creativity it is an important technical feature. It influences hiring, promotion and funding decisions. Despite this importance, the process of determining ownership is often far from transparent.
Essentially, ownership should reflect intellectual contributions. In practice, decisions about who will be the author and whose name appears in the most important place – usually first or last – are discussed in research groups. My research with my colleagues found that women report more negative experiences regarding creative decisions.
Norms vary greatly across disciplines, and unclear standards combined with power dynamics can cause problems, especially for female researchers.
One of these is phantom attribution: where researchers who contribute meaningfully do not receive attribution. Alternative gift authorization: where people who don’t contribute in a meaningful way are included as authors.
Deciding who gets credit for a research project is complicated, even if everyone has the best intentions. This partnership can take years, and each person’s roles often change over time. Students graduate, researchers move facilities and projects evolve. As a result, creative decisions are often shaped not just by contributions, but by a set of informal or “hidden” rules that are rarely made public.
These hidden rules can include the power of exchange between senior and junior researchers. Junior researchers, such as PhD students and postdocs, often depend on management for funding and future opportunities. This can make it difficult to express concerns about creativity.
The standards for determining contributions can be confusing. Although recently there has been more discussion about the different ways one can do it to contribute to the projectauthors may disagree as to which contributions are most important. For example, how should writing a paper be measured by collecting or analyzing data?
Fear of reputational damage may also put an end to open discussions about debt. Because researchers are concerned about being “hard to work with” they may avoid raising concerns about ownership, even when the stakes are high.
Gifts and ghosts
To see how these decisions work, my collaborators and I conducted a survey of more than 3,500 researchers in 12 countries – one of the largest. studies of its kind. We asked the researchers about their experiences and disagreements about identity, the comfort of discussing the author in their groups and the knowledge about problematic writing processes.
We found that questionable design practices are very common. In our research, 68pc of researchers have identified ghost identities, and 55pc of researchers have identified ghost identities.
Although the author’s experience was similar for all researchers in the natural and social sciences, another pattern emerged. Female researchers reported that they encountered writing practices that were more problematic in collaboration. They experienced more disagreement about creative decisions and felt less comfortable raising the author’s concerns.
This is especially concerning given what researchers call “leaky pipe” in academia – where women are more likely to leave the workforce or less likely to advance to senior positions over time. These patterns suggest that the hidden rules of writing affect women and men differently.
Why is it important
These numbers are not just statistics. They represent missed opportunities, strong collaborations and quietly devolved jobs. Identity plays an important role in research activities, and small recognition differences can accumulate over time. If the debt is unequal, the opportunities are unequal. This shapes who lives on campus and whose views define the field. In the long run, this may also push talented researchers away from academic careers or exacerbate existing inequalities such as a leaky pipeline.
Universities rely on collaborative environments that are not only productive, but also fair. Dealing with problems with the author and its hidden laws is important to keep moving towards better science.
In a separate study of US PhD-granting universities, my colleagues and I found that less than 25pc have publicly available accreditation policies. Even where policies existed, they rarely provided guidance on how to handle problems or resolve conflicts. Clear institutional guidance and accessible dispute resolution procedures will provide researchers with a framework to more effectively navigate documentation.
In addition, the training of the writer can encourage earlier and more open discussions about ownership within research teams, especially for junior researchers who may feel uncomfortable raising these issues. More promotion transparent documents of individual contributions can help ensure that ownership reflects the work actually done, as roles change during the project. The training will clearly benefit young professors, but it can also be valuable for senior academics who supervise doctoral students and help shape research practices.
When ownership is transparent and openly discussed, it can enable strong research teams, equitable work progress and greater trust in the scientific process. Science is a team effort, and our credit systems should reflect that fact.
By Mary M Hausfeld
Mary M Hausfeld is an assistant professor of administration, at the university University of Limerick. His research focuses on leadership, diversity in the workplace and research methods. Hausfeld is particularly interested in the conceptual and methodological gap between what leaders do and how they are evaluated. His work has been published in outlets including the Journal of Management and others. Before joining UL, Hausfeld worked as a postgraduate research fellow and head of education at the Leadership Center for the Future of Work at the University of Zurich. Hausfeld received his PhD in organizational science from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Don’t miss out on the information you need to succeed. Sign up for Daily BriefSilicon Republic’s digest of must-know sci-tech news.
