National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Biomedical Ethics Research Program and Center for Regenerative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.
Account Res. 2020 Apr;27(3):115-137. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1722947. Epub 2020 Feb 8.
We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,540 researchers concerning their experiences with and attitudes toward the ethics of equal contribution (EC) designations in publications. Over half the respondents (58.3%) said they had been designated as an EC at least once. Although most respondents agreed that EC designations can be a useful way of promoting collaborations (81.7%) or resolving disagreements about authorship order (63.3%), a substantial proportion of respondents (38.1%) regarded these designations as useful but ethically questionable. 31.7% of respondents said EC designations are ethically questionable because ECs are difficult to define or measure and 25.9% said they are ethically questionable because people rarely contribute equally. Most respondents (71.8%) agreed that it is unfair to name two people as ECs when they have not contributed equally and that journals (73.4%), research teams (69.5%), and research institutions (63%) should develop policies concerning EC designations. Views concerning the ethics and policies of EC designations were influenced by the race/ethnicity and position of respondents but not by gender. Researchers who had been designated as ECs were less likely to regard this practice as ethically questionable than those who had not.
我们对 1540 名研究人员进行了一项横断面调查，了解他们在出版物中对同等贡献（EC）署名的经验和态度。超过一半的受访者（58.3%）表示他们至少被指定过一次 EC。尽管大多数受访者同意 EC 署名可以是促进合作的一种有用方式（81.7%）或解决关于作者顺序的分歧（63.3%），但相当一部分受访者（38.1%）认为这些署名虽然有用但在伦理上值得质疑。31.7%的受访者认为 EC 署名在伦理上值得质疑，因为 EC 很难定义或衡量，25.9%的受访者认为 EC 署名在伦理上值得质疑，因为人们很少平等贡献。大多数受访者（71.8%）同意，当两个人没有平等贡献时，将两人命名为 EC 是不公平的，期刊（73.4%）、研究团队（69.5%）和研究机构（63%）应该制定关于 EC 署名的政策。对 EC 署名的伦理和政策的看法受到受访者种族/民族和职位的影响，但不受性别的影响。被指定为 EC 的研究人员比没有被指定为 EC 的研究人员不太认为这种做法在伦理上值得质疑。
