Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
In this presentation, we offer a conceptual analysis on the notion of Moral Authorship and explore in what ways the notion is promising in the field of Teaching and Education. We compare Moral Authorship with other notions, namely ‘normative professionalism’, ‘the good professional’, ‘reflective professionalism', ‘professional autonomy’, ‘professional responsibility’ and ‘moral craftmanship’. The comparison shows that each concept has a particular focus and use in practice. The notion of Moral Authorship seems promising in at least two ways: the association with authorship leads to a renewed attitude towards professional agency, and it can combine (the most) promising aspects of other concepts. Paper presented at the AME 2017 Conference
This article focuses on moral authorship as an element of the professional development of novice teachers in the Netherlands. Moral authorship refers to the ability of teachers to observe, identify, verbalize and reflect on the moral aspects of their work in a proactive and dialogical manner. We elaborate on moral authorship by theoretically exploring six interdependent tasks of moral meaning making: moral commitment, awareness, orientation and positioning, moral performance and evaluation. Narratives of 19 novice teachers were analyzed to explore moral authorship in teachers’ talk. The results show the opportunities of moral authorship to support, navigate, and reinforce the professional development of novice teachers. This study suggests professional self-dialogs for enhancing the development of moral authorship.
LINK
