Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a solid paper, with the need for answers to just a few questions and responses to a few comments that would strengthen, especially, evidence and argument. Lines 44-50: Education is essential, there need to be serious sanctions in extreme cases, such as that for Stapel in social psychology. Lines 61-62: This was the case a number of years ago. Lines 63-66: The academic rewards system is a major issue in many ways, not just "publish or perish." Lines 71-72: Do you have data on this? Lines 86-91: See also, JAMA's author disclosure requirements. Section 3 presents that types very well. Lines 134-136: This statement may be a bit of an equivocation; the authors could be more firm on this matter. Lines 156-162: The determination of ghost authorship must be extremely elusive. How are data gathered on this category? Lines 175-177: As a reader, I find myself wanting more on this matter. Could the authors expand on the impact on trust? Line 187: For more on academic capital, see Sheila Slaughter, et al. Lines 196-201: This phenomenon seems to be particularly pernicious. Is it with institutions primarily, or across institutions? The latter appears to make the offense more serious. Lines 211-212: I agree on the diagnosis of power relations; could a bit more be said about that? Also, is there any evidence that authors extend honorary authorship in the hope of reciprocation from colleagues? Lines 277-279: Does the attraction of the funding that rendered the work possible play a role in authorship and rewards? (I know it does, but it may need to be stated explicitly.) Lines 332-333: Can the authors offer a rationale for this recommendation? Lines 344-347: The authors may want to mention the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication; this is a venue at which a number of problems have been reported.

Again, this is a solid paper; I would simply like to see the questions and comments addressed

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I invite the authors to expand the introduction and give further details to support their assumptions. They can also cite previous works about the topic. As well, I invite the authors to consider more statistical analyses of authorship behaviours. The authors rarely use scientometric studies to support their findings. I invite the authors to enrich several parts of the author with references from Scientometrics, JASIST and other journals.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx