Authorship Credit in Supervisor-Student Collaboration: Assessing the Dilemma in Psychology

Abstract

Clear guidelines for authorship credit are not only important to ensure that a researcher gets the academic recognition he or she deserves, but also to avoid personal conflict and even lawsuits. It is therefore regrettable that relatively little research has been done on this topic and that few academic and research institutions seem to have formal guidelines in this regard. To assess the situation in South Africa concerning authorship credit in supervisor-student collaborations, more than 1000 questionnaires were distributed to academic psychologists, non-academic psychologists and psychology students undergoing professional training. The questionnaire consisted of sketches of four hypothetical cases to which the respondent had to respond quantitatively and qualitatively. The results are presented and discussed, and guidelines for determining authorship credit are suggested.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allan

(1995). The role of the psychologist in South African courts: a psycholegal appraisal. Unpublished doctor's thesis, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein

Bush

D.W.

White

K.R.

(1995). Questionnaire distribution: a method that significantly improved return rates. Psychological Reports, 56, 427–430

Chadwick

B.A.

Bahr

H.M.

Albrecht

S.L.

(1984). Social science research methods. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Colman

A.M.

Grant

S.P.

Henderson

(1992/93). Performance of British university psychology departments as measured by number of publications in BPS journals. Current Psychology, 11, 360–368

Crespi

T.D.

(1994). Student scholarship: in the best interest of the scholar. American Psychologist, 49, 1094–1095

Fine

M.A.

Kurdek

L.A.

(1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48, 1141–1147

Koocher

G.P.

Keith-Spiegel

(1998). Ethics in psychology. Professional standard and cases (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press

McNicol

(1988). Psychology and the higher education system. Australian Psychologist, 23, 273–288

Murray

(December, 1998). The authorship dilemma: who gets credit for what? APA Monitor, 29, 1–31

10.

National Academy of Sciences. (1995). On being a scientist. Responsible conduct in research. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

11.

Remington

Green

(1988). Teaching psychology in American and British universities: some personal impressions. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 26–30

12.

Shadish

W.R.

(1994). APA ethics and student authorship on master's theses. American Psychologist, 49, 1096

13.

Smith

M.J.

(1990). Program evaluation in the human services. New York: Springer

14.

Taft

Day

R.H.

(1988). Psychology in Australia. Annual Review of Psychology, 39, 375–100

15.

Thompson

(1994). The big picture(s) in deciding authorship order. American Psychologist, 49, 1095–1096

16.

Wuensch

(1998). Thesis authorship. http://ecuvax.cis.ecu.edu/∼pswuenc/thauth

17.

Zar

J.H.

(1984). Biostatistical analysis (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall