Authorship in Communication Science Journals: Mapping Romanian Practices
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Romanian Scientific Journals in Communication Sciences
2.2. Editors, as Sources of Insight into the Publication Practices
- Is there a terminological difference between “author” and “contributor” in social sciences and humanities?;
- What is your definition of an “author” (of a scientific article)?;
- Do you recommend or limit the number of authors for the articles accepted for publication?;
- In the case of multiple authors, how do you recommend establishing their order?
- Depending on the contribution made
- Depending on the teaching degree
3.1. Scientific Authorship and Authorship-Related Information on the Journals’ Homepage
3.2. A View from the Editors
5. Conclusions and Further Directions of Research
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
|http://www.acta.sapientia.ro/acta-comm/communicatio-main.htm (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|http://www.acta.sapientia.ro/acta-film/film-main.htm (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://www.aucjc.ro/about/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://dppd.tuiasi.ro/cercetare/buletinul-ipi-sectia-socio-umane/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://revistacil.wordpress.com/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://www.cultural-intertexts.com/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://www.ekphrasisjournal.ro/index.php?p=home (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|http://litere.hyperion.ro/hypercultura/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|http://anale.spiruharet.ro/index.php/behav-sci/index (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://www.mrjournal.ro/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://www.medok.ro/en/medok/about-medok (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://sc.upt.ro/ro/publicatii/pcts (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|http://www.jurnalism-comunicare.eu/rrjc/index_en.php (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://journalofcommunication.ro/index.php/journalofcommunication (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://revistasaeculum1943.wordpress.com (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://sserr.ro/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|http://studia.ubbcluj.ro/serii/ephemerides/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
|https://journalonarts.org/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)|
https://stylesofcomm.fjsc.ro/ (accessed on 22 December 2022)
https://techniumscience.com/index.php/socialsciences (accessed on 22 December 2022)
- Popović, M. Networks of Scholars: The Transmission of Astronomical and Astrological Learning between Babylonians, Greeks and Jews. In Ancient Jewish Sciences and the History of Knowledge in Second Temple Literature; Ben-Dov, J., Sanders, S.L., Eds.; New York University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 151–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foucault, M. What is an author? In The Foucault Reader; Rabinow, P., Ed.; Pantheon Books: New York, NY, USA, 1984; pp. 101–120. [Google Scholar]
- Moffatt, B. Scientific authorship, pluralism, and practice. Account. Res. 2018, 25, 199–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyland, K. Academic Publishing: Issues and Challenges in the Production of Knowledge; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Osborne, J.W.; Holland, A. What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications. Pract. Assess. Res. Eval. 2009, 14, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasilevsky, N.A.; Hosseini, M.; Teplitzky, S.; Ilik, V.; Mohammadi, E.; Schneider, J.; Kern, B.; Colomb, J.; Edmunds, S.C.; Gutzman, K.; et al. Is authorship sufficient for today’s collaborative research? A call for contributor roles. Account Res. 2021, 28, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babalola, S.S.; Nwanzu, C.L. The current phase of social sciences research: A thematic overview of the literature. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2021, 7, 1892263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Johann, D.; Mayer, S.J. The Perception of Scientific Authorship Across Domains. Minerva 2019, 57, 175–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, A. How Scientists Communicate: Dispatches from the Frontiers of Knowledge; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson-Garcia, N.; Amat, C.B. Does it make sense to limit the scientific co-authorship? There is no inflation of authors in Social Sciences and Education in Spain. Rev. Esp. Doc. Cient. 2018, 41, a201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Beaulieu, L. Bourbaki’s art of memory. Osiris 1999, 14, 219–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biagioli, M. Rights or Rewards? Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship. In Scientific Authorship. Credit and Intellectual Property in Science; Biagioli, M., Galison, P., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 253–280. [Google Scholar]
- Pruschak, G. What Constitutes Authorship in the Social Sciences? Front. Res. Metr. Anal. 2021, 6, 655350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Macfarlane, B. The ethics of multiple authorship: Power, performativity and the gift economy. Stud. High. Educ. 2017, 42, 1194–1210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claxton, L.D. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat. Res. 2005, 589, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, Y.W. Definition of authorship in social science journals. Scientometrics 2019, 118, 563–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNutt, M.K.; Bradford, M.; Drazen, J.M.; Hanson, B.; Howard, B.; Jamieson, K.H.; Kiermer, V.; Marcus, E.; Pope, B.K.; Schekman, R.; et al. Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 2557–2560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Gass, S. Transforming Scientific Communication for the 21st Century. Sci. Technol. Libr. 2001, 19, 3–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linkov, F.; Lovalekar, M.; Laporte, R. Scientific Journals are “faith based”: Is there science behind peer review? J. R. Soc. Med. 2006, 99, 596–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hyland, K.; Tse, P. “The leading journal in its field”: Evaluation in journal descriptions. Discourse Stud. 2009, 11, 703–720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ives, B.; Bādescu, G. Romanian scholarly productivity: Recent history and recommendations. High. Educ. Res. Dev. 2015, 34, 926–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brand, A.; Allen, L.; Altman, M.; Hlava, M.; Scott, J. Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learn. Publ. 2015, 28, 151–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Balaban, D.C. Development of communication science in Romania. Challenges and perspectives. Prof. Commun. Transl. Stud. 2013, 6, 3–10. [Google Scholar]
- Order of the Minister of National Education and Scientific Research No.6.129/20.12.2016 on the Minimum Necessary and Mandatory Standards for the Awarding of Didactic Titles in Higher Education, Professional Research and Development Degrees, the Quality of Doctoral Supervisor and the Qualification Certificate. Available online: https://www.edu.ro/ordinul-ministrului-educa%C8%9Biei-na%C8%9Bionale-%C8%99i-cercet%C4%83rii-%C8%99tiin%C8%9Bifice-nr-61292016-privind-aprobarea (accessed on 1 February 2023).
- National Council of Scientific Research (CNCS). Available online: http://old.cncs-nrc.ro/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Pachet-informatii-reviste.2012.pdf (accessed on 3 November 2022).
- National Council of Scientific Research (CNCS). Evaluation of Scientific Publications 2020. Available online: http://www.cncs-nrc.ro/publicatii-stiintifice/ (accessed on 3 November 2022).
- Kulczycki, E.; Engels, T.C.E.; Pölönen, J.; Bruun, K.; Dušková, M.; Guns, R.; Nowotniak, R.; Petr, M.; Sivertsen, G.; Starčič, A.I.; et al. Publication patterns in the social sciences and humanities: Evidence from eight European countries. Scientometrics 2018, 116, 463–486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Cernicova-Buca, M. Language Preferences in Romanian Communication Sciences Journals: A Web-Based Analysis. Publications 2021, 9, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Čudić, M. Journals and criteria for academic advancement in the social and humanities: A comparative view of the current situation in Serbia and Hungary. Čitaliste: A Sci. J. Theory Pract. Librariansh. 2022, 21, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online: https://publicationethics.org/about/our-organisation (accessed on 22 December 2022).
- Demain, P. Giving CRediT Where CrediT Is Due. 22 April 2021. Available online: https://info.orcid.org/credit-for-research-contribution/ (accessed on 22 December 2022).
- Modarres, A. It’s Not Just the Author: The Reader and the Editor Are Dead, Too. Publications 2015, 3, 168–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- e-Learning Courses for Springer Nature Editors. Available online: https://www.springernature.com/gp/editors/editor-courses (accessed on 1 February 2023).
|Location of information for authors||Does the journal website have a dedicated section for authors?|
If not, where is the information concerning authorship placed?
How many clicks are necessary to access the information?
|Definition of authorship||Does the journal provide a definition regarding authorship?|
Is there a clarification concerning authorship/contributorship?
|Recommended number of authors||Does the journal set a recommended/maximum number of authors?|
If so, is there an indication regarding the taxonomy of credit?
Is there an indication regarding the functions of the corresponding/lead author and the order of authors in the list?
|Ethical provisions||Does the authorship section provide ethical guidance (described by the journal or referenced from international guidelines)?|
|Journal||Dedicated Section for Authors||Definition of Authorship||Recommended|
Number of Authors
|Credit Taxonomy||Ethical Provisions|
|Issue||WoS Journals||Non-WoS Journals|
|Definition of authorship||0||1|
|Is there a difference between author and contributor?||(R1) The author is the person who generates the idea, develops the concept, the structure, proposes the case study and the appropriate research methods, gathers the contributions, elaborates the text. The contributor is the person who participates in the realization of the study with data gathering, parts of the research.|
(R3) In communication sciences we do NOT make this difference. They’re all authors.
(R4) I DO make the difference, depending on the place (not the type) of publication. Thus, Author = usually scientific article to journals, with a stand-alone circulation, or sole author of a book; Contributor = author of article/chapter, submitted to be integrated into a collective volume, edited/coordinated by someone else.
(R5) It’s a major difference. The author conceives, does the design of the research, sketches the ideational; has an essential contribution. The contributor has a non-essential contribution in the design and conduct of the research.
(R6) They are partial synonyms. For me an author is the sole signatory of a book. Contributor = author of article/chapter, submitted to be integrated into collective volume, designed/proposed/edited/coordinated by someone else.
(R7) I don’t make a difference. Any contributor is an author.
|Definition of authorship||(R1) I already replied.|
(R2) The researcher who conducted the research in question and based on the obtained results wrote the related study.
(R3) The author of a scientific article is persons who contributed to the realization of this article. There are publications (e.g., Computers in Human Behavior) where they ask for details of the contribution (e.g., to the theory part, to the methods, to the collection and analysis of data, etc.)
(R4) The author of the scientific article cumulatively fulfills the following criteria:
(R6) Author = the creator and owner of a text (regardless of whether it is scientific, essay, literature, etc.)
(R7) Author = the person who has the skills, knowledge, and interest to produce a new, original, and interesting research. Unfortunately, I have seen enough cases where the content is merely a compilation from resources, without contributing to the progress of knowledge.
|Recommended number of authors||(R1) 1–5 authors|
(R3) There was no such thing. But the number of authors per article has increased even in the humanities in recent years.
(R4) I am aware that the number of authors may differ depending on the following criteria:
(R6) I had all kinds of situations. Some twenty years ago, I could not accept multiple authorship for an article or a chapter. Now my position is more nuanced. I don’t believe in co-authors from the same field/institution. I’ve seen enough “gift authorship” situations to be skeptical of this practice. But if the authors come from different specializations, e.g., philologist + computer scientist/sociologist, then yes, I think the result is legitimate. In humanities multiple authorship is not very widespread. In other disciplines, everyone takes their “slice” of the workload and of fame, according to their competencies.
(R7) When I wrote with others, I didn’t put forward conditions. I think that in interdisciplinary studies it’s normal to have more authors. The same goes for articles that involve investigating practical cases and/or field studies. I think it is about the complementarity of skills, but it can also be about the resources attracted for the emergence and promotion of a new scientific product.
|Order of names in the list (for multiple authorship)||(R1) Depending on the contribution.|
(R2) Always depending on the contribution made, and if the authors consider that they had equal contribution, then in alphabetical order, by last name.
(R3) Clearly according to the made contribution.
(R4) From personal experience, I would say that the order depends on the contribution. But also, it is customary to prioritize authors according to the didactic degree, especially for articles signed together with Ph.D. students. In case of established teams, recurrently publishing together, the order is sometimes negotiated to occur by rotation, to obtain a balance. However, I know about situations where 3/(x) authors submit 3/(x) articles, and each was written only by the first author. Personally, I try to discourage such practices.
(R5) Depending on the contribution and workload.
(R6) Context is of the essence. The order may depend on the author with the highest visibility/”marketability”. But it also depends on the contribution of each individual, or, in case of equal contribution, the order should be alphabetical. I think it is the authors who must decide.
(R7) It can be random, depending on the academic degree, but the authors have a decisive say in the matter.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
© 2023 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Cernicova-Buca, M. Authorship in Communication Science Journals: Mapping Romanian Practices. Publications 2023, 11, 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020020
Cernicova-Buca M. Authorship in Communication Science Journals: Mapping Romanian Practices. Publications. 2023; 11(2):20. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020020Chicago/Turabian Style
Cernicova-Buca, Mariana. 2023. "Authorship in Communication Science Journals: Mapping Romanian Practices" Publications 11, no. 2: 20. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications11020020