Navigating the Decisions and Ethics of Authorship: An Examination of Graduate Student Journal Article Authorship

Abstract

Authorship and authorship order are visual shortcuts that communicate student success. We content analyzed to what extent graduate students published as lead authors in 10 refereed communication and media journals over a decade (2007–2016) examining student authorship, coauthorship, and affiliations. Graduate students appeared in approximately 23% of the sampled articles with graduate students most often appearing as lead author on multiauthored articles. If there is an increasing expectation to secure lead authorship, students may need to navigate the authorship process. Guidelines are provided on how to assess and negotiate authorship based on intellectual contributions, tasks, and sustained commitment.

Keywords

graduate student authorship authorship order coauthorship collaboration research integrity ethics

Introduction

Publication in research journals is critical for academic job advancement, yet having a paper accepted in a top journal is a significant hurdle. The reality is few people publish repeatedly in top journals. Reasons for manuscript rejection include poor research design, no or little contribution to a body of knowledge, poor writing, and manuscript organization (Neuman et al., 2008). Graduate students, specifically PhD students, face pressure to publish peer-reviewed research during their education. Employers, especially research universities, evaluate applicants based on the number of peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters produced during their graduate student careers. In fact, the number of peer-reviewed journal articles is the most commonly accepted indicator used to assess future productivity (Vincent, 1991). Graduate students feel the pressure to publish because they fear not securing a job following graduation in an increasingly competitive job market (Hangel & Schmidt-Pfister, 2017). The number of people working within the tenure system in the United States is declining. Thirty percent of positions were tenure track or tenured in 2015. In 1975, tenured and tenure-track positions represented 45% of faculty positions (American Association of University Professors Research Office, 2017). Publishing expectations are a concern for PhD program leaders and researchers, because these expectations may lead future scholars to sideline time committed to course work, self-care, and intellectual growth, which ultimately influences the rigor of knowledge produced by scholars, their dedication to teaching students, and their own mental health.

The assumption held by many PhD students is that they must be hyperproductive, which may or may not align with employers’ expectations (Reese, 2014). Carpenter (2008) examined graduate student authorship journal productivity trends in journalism and mass communication from 1997 to 2006 finding no consistent increase over time that graduate students were publishing more often in journals. The little research that has been conducted shows a small proportion of published research is written by communication graduate students. In 1999, Hickson et al. found that a faculty member who publishes six or more articles in a lifetime would be classified in the top 10% of the communication discipline, whereas Bunz (2005) found that a professor would have to author five to nine articles in a study of eight communication journals from 1999 to 2004 depending upon rank to be classified as prolific. To be a prolific graduate student author, one would have to publish three or more publications by the time they graduated (Bunz, 2005). Furthermore, Atkin (1996) found only 12.4% of sampled articles in 10 telecommunications journals were authored by graduate students.

The overarching concern is whether students’ perceptions of a high-pressure climate reflect reality. To gain an understanding regarding the extent graduate students are publishing in journals, a quantitative content analysis of 10 journalism, media, and communication journals was carried out to investigate what proportion of articles were published by graduate students, what proportion of total authors were graduate students, the extent that graduate students published as first author, and the institutions representing the highest proportion of authors in journalism and communication articles. In addition, guidance is offered overviewing ethical guidelines for determining authorship and authorship order. Particularly, authorship negotiation and authorship order are discussed because no set ethical standards exist for determining authorship order with the exception of student dissertations.

Literature Review

Research Collaboration

Research shows mentoring through collaboration is a predictor of journal research submissions and productivity (Carpenter et al., 2015; Paglis et al., 2006). Collaboration involves researchers working together to achieve a common goal of advancing scholarly knowledge (Katz & Martin, 1997). Gerald M. Phillips (1979) said, “The only way we can acquire the Einsteins of tomorrow is to make them . . . through relationships” (p. 345). Vygotsky (1978) argued most individuals would not achieve deep levels of knowledge unless they are surrounded by a diverse set of intellectual individuals who challenge them throughout their life. The ideal aim of a collaboration results in “the coming together of diverse interests and people to achieve a common purpose via interactions, information sharing, and coordination of activities” (Jassawalla, & Sashittal, 1998, p. 239). Collaborations can exist at varying levels such as among researchers within a department, between departments within the same institution, between different types of institutions (e.g., universities, governmental institutions, and hospitals), or between geographical regions and countries (Katz & Martin, 1997; Melin & Persson, 1996). Collaboration rates between countries and institutions have increased thanks to technological and communication advancements (Lehman et al., 2017; Melin & Persson, 1996; Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005). There is additional evidence that research may be even becoming more collaborative, which may mean that research will more likely be multiauthored due to: (a) an increase in grant expectations; (b) technological complexity of science, software, and tools (e.g., programming languages); and (c) a lack of financial resources provided to students and faculty members (Gazni et al., 2012; Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005).

In research groups, academic authority can influence group power dynamics and authorship decisions. Although the process is collaborative, certain group members are more likely at a higher intellectual level in order to help other group members learn how to conduct research (Fernandez et al., 2001). Vygotsky (1978) described the role of a teacher during collaborations as one who leads the underdeveloped individual to a higher level of development. For example, Miller (1979) found the use of research teams led by Michigan State University doctoral faculty was a useful tool in stimulating intellectual growth. As time passed in their program, student team members increasingly took on more challenging research team roles. Researchers in Australia measured three types of interventions to help doctoral students produce original research: writing courses, writing support groups, and writing coaches. Publication rates increased for all students who took part in the three interventions. However, peer-based writing support groups were the most successful in increasing student confidence (McGrail et al., 2006). Results from a study of Washington University students who participated in a writing group showed that group support and feedback enhanced the quantity and quality of their scholarly writing (Page-Adams et al., 1995).

The formal teaching of collaboration, however, is not often a systematic or a pedagogical experience for students, which means students may not know how to navigate roles and authorship (Austin, 2002). As previously stated, the ideal outcomes of a collaboration involve generating new ideas, strengthening existing work, and deepening knowledge. Yet, scientific collaborations typically involve siloes in which team members perform concrete, separate duties varying in levels of complexity and specialization (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005; Wang & Hicks, 2015). The siloed approach means research collaborations involve the assignment of roles and associated tasks by a person in an authoritative position (Melin & Persson, 1996). Ultimately, scholars may interpret collaborative and mentoring behaviors as the assignment of duties by a senior author rather than a process in which scholars exchange ideas and discuss research possibilities. Furthermore, students learn about collaborative behaviors based on what they experience in their doctoral education, which may influence their future student collaborations and mentoring behaviors.

Research Training

The most productive institutions tend to be home to the most productive graduate students (Neuendorf et al., 2007). Schweitzer (1988) found 60% of authors were represented by almost 15% of U.S. communication programs. Michigan State University, Indiana University, University of Texas–Austin, Stanford University, University of Minnesota, and University of Wisconsin–Madison produced students with the most graduate student-authored publications, whereas Michigan State University, Indiana University, University of Texas–Austin, Cleveland State University of Wisconsin–Madison, and University of Alabama authors authored the most publications in a study of telecommunication journal articles (Atkin, 1996). Neuendorf et al. (2007) also found communication faculty ranked University of Wisconsin–Madison, University of Texas–Austin, University of Pennsylvania, Michigan State University, and University of Iowa as the best. In one study, Michigan State University, University of California-Santa Barbara, and University of Wisconsin–Madison accounted for 54% of authors in National Communication Association (NCA) and International Communication Association (ICA) journals (Bunz, 2005). In a study of graduate student-authored articles, graduate students with affiliations from Indiana University, University of Wisconsin–Madison, and Michigan State University appeared the most often in journalism and communication journals (Carpenter, 2008).

Authorship

As previously stated, research supports that academic research is increasingly becoming a more collaborative product in which people may perform assigned functions during a research project. Collaboration plays an important part in training graduate students to learn the norms of publishing within their field and to learn areas beyond their present understanding. People who receive such training are more likely to publish later in their academic careers (Wray, 2006). To learn and to get published, graduate students often ask their professors to collaborate with them on a research project or vice versa. Collaborations should involve negotiation or discussion concerning authorship and authorship order on research publications stemming from such team efforts.

There are mixed beliefs regarding whether faculty members should provide authorship to students in some instances. For example, general editing, data entry, or data collection are work roles that can be questionable in deserving authorship. In one study, the majority of graduate assistants stated if they assisted with the analysis of data that they should be listed as an author of the study, but faculty members significantly felt to a lesser degree that this role earned them authorship (Brown-Wright et al., 1997). In addition, scholars from two Australian universities believed that research project contribution levels should determine authorship order, yet junior scholars at those universities felt exploited because they believed senior scholars did not often deserve their authorship position (Street et al., 2010). If a student is paid to collect data, enter data, and assist with analysis under close supervision, Werley et al. (1981) stated students only need to be only acknowledged in a footnote. However, another study found researchers from all fields with the exception of nursing stated data analysis and interpretation was the single highest rated contribution (Marušic et al., 2011).

If one visits the theoretical definition of authorship, routine or small tasks may not earn a graduate student authorship because they do not make an intellectual contribution via writing or the design of the project. Authorship is granted when a person contributes in some substantial and intellectual way to the development of the manuscript. Authorship is defined as “individual responsibility and credit for a project and thereby acknowledges the intellectual contributions and developmental work of the individual(s) who substantially contribute to a product” (Carlson & Ross, 2010, p. 268). Junior scholars and students should earn coauthorship privileges if their contributions are substantial throughout all phases of the project (Hanson, 1988). The American Psychological Association (2002) created guidelines for Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct for determining publishing credits for authorship. They proposed that research team members should receive credit if they substantially contributed regardless of the status of contributors.

Thus, as research reveals, there is much ambiguity concerning authorship and authorship order. That is why roles or tasks that deserve authorship should be negotiated at the start of a project. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2020) published the most cited guidelines for determining whether someone should be an acknowledged as an author or acknowledged in a footnote. They recommend the following four criteria must be met to secure an authorship on a manuscript: (a) substantial contributions to the conception or the design of the work or the collecting, analysis, or interpretation of data; (b) drafting the work or revising it substantially demonstrating important intellectual contributions; (c) final approval of the published version; and (d) agreement to be accountable regarding all aspects of the work.

Most authors are not aware that journals and universities provide authorship guidelines to assist them with discussions about authorship. Authorship policies or guidelines have been established at most universities, by most professional organizations, and by most professional journals (Street et al., 2010). Thus, one should first check the manuscript submission guidelines when determining manuscript authorship. If no guidelines are in place, they should check the professional association of the journal followed by their home university’s recommendations on how to best determine authorship.

Authorship Order

Collaborative research in academia is empirically assessed through coauthored publications. Unfortunately, no accepted standards exist for determining and handling the fair allocation of credit. Credit is often communicated by the authorship order on a manuscript with first author being generally understood as the most substantial contributor in the fields of communication and media. The professor–student relationship presents a unique imbalance of power, and as such, junior scholars should be aware of what exists in terms of guidelines to help them negotiate authorship order. The Committee on Publication Ethics [COPE] (2003) recommended researchers revisit authorship order on a regular basis from the start of a project to the submission of a manuscript. This is the most common advice to avoid authorship order disputes: negotiate order at the start of a project. All potential collaborators should schedule a meeting to discuss not only their responsibilities, but they also should discuss cases or procedures that would result in a cause for termination from the project such as not fulfilling a particular commitment within a set period of time (Hanson, 1988).

The process of determining whose names should appear first, second, third, and so on is important to discuss because people in positions of lesser power such as graduate students or untenured faculty members may perceive they should automatically grant someone with a higher status with lead authorship. Students may collaborate on research because they want to be recognized in an academic community by coauthoring with a prolific and reputable researcher. Students should be taught that they should not be expected to publish with senior faculty members unless they feel that a faculty coauthor significantly and intellectually contributed to creation of the manuscript.

Approaches are articulated to help junior and student scholars navigate the authorship order negotiation process to reduce potential future conflicts with coauthors. Pressure exists to author research publications because graduate students are often hired based on the likelihood that they would receive tenure at that institution, which is often determined by number, authorship placement, and quality of the journal. A notable publication record positively influences advanced degree programs acceptance, faculty/postdoc positions hiring, promotion decision hiring, merit pay, grant funding, and awards. Conflicts can arise when researchers fail to give credit, give unwarranted credit, or take other people’s ideas in faculty–student collaborations. If a problem does arise, students should speak to a dean or the university’s research integrity officer. However, graduate students often do not report such incidents to a journal editor or a dean out of a fear of negative consequences (Marušic et al., 2011). McNutt et al. (2018) stated journal and university leadership provide little support or information helping students to mediate authorship disputes.

Authors who substantially contribute to research are recognized as the senior author. The first or the last author, dependent upon discipline, provides higher levels of contribution than the middle authors (Larivière et al., 2016; Street et al., 2010). The senior author is often the person who conceived the initial idea for the study. The senior author manages his or her coauthors to ensure that the manuscript is completed in a timely and rigorous manner. In the fields of communication and media, first authorship is usually the senior author position.

Clear definition of tasks helps to prevent future disputes (Hanson, 1988). The most logical approach for determining authorship order is based on the tasks carried out and evaluating the weight of those roles or tasks when determining authorship order. Most studies show that conception of research/research design and writing are the biggest contributors to authorship order in the health sciences, natural, and social sciences (Marušic et al., 2011).

Winston (1985) created an authorship-determination worksheet in which a group discusses responsibilities and they assign points to each role. The intent of this document was to help scholars discuss authorship and to also recognize which roles carry the most weight. Winston also stated a major intellectual contribution was coming up with research idea recognizing the importance of creativity in the research process, and it was assigned 50 points by default. Following a discussion and determination of all tasks and assignment of points, each contributor’s points are totaled and the person with the most points is granted senior authorship. If authors do not fulfill their responsibilities, those points are transitioned to the person who steps in and completes the previously assigned tasks (see Table 1). Many journals are now placing limits on the number of authors per article because of the likelihood that each author substantially contributed to creation of the manuscript as the number of authors increase. For example, The Journal of Anthroplasty limits the number of authors to six individuals and some journals require that each author state what they specifically contributed to the study (Lehman et al., 2017).

Table 1.

Activities Associated With Data-Driven Research.

Activity category	Points	Method of assigning points
Conceptualizing and refining research ideas	50	Q
Literature search	20	T
Creating research design	30	Q
Instrument selection	10	Q
Instrument construction/questionnaire design	40	Q/T
Selection of statistical tests/analyses	10	Q
Performing statistical analyses and computation	10	Q
Collection and preparation of data (gathering, scoring/coding, and entering)	10	Q
Interpretation of statistical analyses	10	T
Drafting manuscripts		Q
First draft	50	T
Second draft	30	T
Redraft of a page (on later drafts)	2	T
Editing manuscript	10	T
Total points

Notes. Q = points assigned on qualitative criteria; T = points assigned based on proportion of total time expended on the task or on proportion of total pages drafted or revised; Q/T = points assigned partly on the basis of time spent on the tasks and partly on qualitative criteria. This table is based on information described in Winston (1985).

It is considered unethical for professors to coauthor on a dissertation or thesis if the adviser provided little contribution to it. As input increases, however, faculty members may feel that they earned second authorship in exchange for their time. In some circumstances, non-native students may need more involvement from their advisors due to an increase in writing supervision (Dong, 1998). Yet, the ideal aim of a dissertation is that students can produce research on their own demonstrating that they are competent researchers based on their training at their home institution. In a psychology doctoral student survey, students preferred and considered it more ethical to be either first or sole author on any paper submitted for publication that is based on the dissertation even if their advisers originated the dissertation idea (Tryon et al., 2007).

The adviser or committee chair should only place himself or herself as second author (and not first) if he or she made major interpretative contributions to the research design, writing, and selection and development of the variables (Winston, 1985). The American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2002) publication manual stated that faculty members should not accept first authorship on dissertations “except under exceptional standards, a student is listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student’s doctoral dissertation” (APA, 2002, p. 1070). Hanson (1988) and the APA (2002) stated that it is inappropriate to accept any authorship if the adviser provided encouragement, critiques, financial assistance, or editorial assistance on a graduate student’s thesis or dissertation. The APA ethical standards stated that “principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individual involved, regardless of their relative status” (APA, 2002, p. 1070). Faculty members should discuss authorship with students who need more assistance in the beginning phases of the project (Tryon et al., 2007). It is also advised that graduate students have a conversation with faculty members prior to selecting their committee chairs or advisers to see if they expect authorship or they have authored with previous advisees and under what conditions they accepted coauthorship on a student’s project.

Once authorship and responsibilities are determined, it is important to detail them in a written authorship agreement document. Each author should sign a document summarizing authorship order and responsibilities of each author (Winston, 1985). If a document is not brought to such a meeting, an additional recommendation for junior scholars or the senior author is to openly discuss authorship requesting someone to take notes and summarize the information from the meeting in a group email to record each author’s role including the responsibilities of each role.

Research Questions

One overarching goal of this research project was to assess to what extent graduate students actually appeared in journals. A more competitive tenure job market may mean students need to publish and participate on research teams. Ethically, students deserve authorship or senior authorship if they provided substantial and intellectual contributions to the research project based on the literature review. Most research examines only graduate student-authored articles, but the intent was to assess overall how often graduate students appeared in research journals.

RQ1: To what extent do graduate students appear in media and communication articles?

Based on the literature review, it is expected that there will be more collaborative pieces. It is unknown whether students will appear as lead authors on research studies. Previous studies have found that graduate students are experienced in taking on the lead author role. For example, more than 36% of graduate students were listed as first (including sole) in leading advertising journals (Wang et al., 2016). Carpenter (2008) found graduate students were lead author on 51% of the graduate student-authored articles and they were sole author on 25% of journalism and mass communication articles published in 10 different journals.

RQ2: To what extent do graduate students appear as first author in media and communication articles?

The graduate training of students is one of the most critical factors in predicting future productivity (Cole & Bowers, 1973). The most productive institutions tend to be located in the Midwest or Big Ten in the United States (Neuendorf et al., 2007).

RQ3: What universities or organizations appear the most often on graduate student-authored articles in the media and communication journals?

Method

Sampling Procedure

A quantitative content analysis of a random sample of articles from 10 highly ranked media and communication journal representing a 10-year period (2007–2016). The journals were selected based on previous publication productivity studies with an emphasis on journalism (Blake et al., 2004). However, the primary criteria for exclusion were that the journal did not publish the author rank making it challenging to assess rank of someone at the time that it was published. The 10 journals selected were as follows: (a) Journalism (n = 138), (b) Journal of Radio & Audio Media (n = 97), (c) Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (n = 92), (d) Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (n = 89), (e) Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (n = 85), (f) Newspaper Research Journal (n = 79), (g) Public Opinion Quarterly (n = 63), (h) Journalism History (n = 52), (i) Critical Studies in Media Communication (n = 49), and (j) Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (n = 38).

The unit of analysis was the research article. Editorials, book reviews, special introductions, and opinion essays were excluded from this analysis. One journal issue per year was randomly selected from each journal during the 10-year period. However, it was observed that one journal (Journalism) published six issues per year rather than the standard four issues. For that journal, two issues were randomly selected per year totaling 1,000 issues and 782 journal articles. An average of 78.2 articles per year were content analyzed: 2007 (n = 88), 2008 (n = 75), 2009 (n = 78), 2010 (n = 73), 2011 (n = 70), 2012 (n = 79), 2013 (n = 79), 2014 (n = 86), 2015 (n = 79), and 2016 (n = 77).

One doctoral student who has taken a course in content analysis and one associate professor coder experienced with content analysis from the same institution practiced coding on the protocol with articles from an outside sample. Once pilot training was complete, they independently recorded the year, the issue, author number total, academic rank of each author, and the school or other institutions representing each author. Academic ranks included graduate student, full professor, associate professor, assistant professor, practitioner, other (e.g., administrator, adjunct instructor, department chair) category, and no rank. The graduate student author category included both PhD and master’s students. Ten percent of the sample was selected randomly from the entire coded sample to determine intercoder reliability. Scott’s Pi computation was used to correct for chance agreement for nominal level variables. The manifest variables were simple to code because they were not abstract resulting in a 1.0.

Results

In the random sample of journal articles, there were a total of 1,548 authors, with assistant professors (n = 349) being the ones most likely to appear in journal research, followed by associate professors (n = 245), full professors (n = 245), graduate students (n = 232), other university representatives (e.g., administration, instructor; n = 237), practitioners (n = 67), and no rank reported (n = 173). Overall, the 782 journalism and communication articles had an average of 2.0 authors and .30 graduate student authors per article. Of the 1,548 authors, 957 (61.8%) were based in the United States and 407 (26.2%) were international and 184 did not communicate an affiliation. Several journals were more likely to include graduate student authors. A chi-square test showed a significant relationship between journal and the presence of a graduate student-authored article (χ²= 19.709, df = 9, p < .05): Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (n = 30, 16.9%), Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media (n = 28, 15.8%), Journalism (n = 28, 15.8%), Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly (n = 19, 10.7%), Journal of Radio & Audio Media (n = 17, 9.6%), Public Opinion Quarterly (n = 10, 5.6%), Newspaper Research Journal (n = 9, 5.1%), Journalism History (n = 9, 5.1%), Journalism & Mass Communication Educator (n = 9, 5.1%), and Critical Studies in Media Communication (n = 6, 3.4%). This finding seems logical because critical, history, and pedagogical scholarship leans toward single- and faculty-authored research.

RQ1 asked to what extent graduate students appeared in journal research. Interestingly, they appeared in a little under of a quarter of the articles sampled. The random sample revealed that 22.6% of articles included a graduate student totaling 177 articles featuring graduate students. The actual number of the graduate student authors appearing in research was 232 during this 10-year period representing 15.0% of all of authors published in the sample. However, a chi-square test of independence did not support a significant relationship between the time and annual number of graduate student-authored articles (see Table 2). This means publication of graduate student authors did not significantly change over the examined 10-year period.

Table 2.

Graduate Student Authorship Presence in Articles Over Time.

Graduate student presence in journal articles	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	Total
Journal articles	147.9%	147.9%	1810.2%	179.6%	158.5%	2212.4%	1910.7%	2212.4%	2313.0%	137.3%	177

Note. A chi-square showed no relationship between time and graduate student author presence on an article.

RQ2 asked whether graduate student authors would appear as senior or first authors. Of the 177 articles that included graduate students, graduate students (n = 92) were most likely to appear as first or sole author, followed by second (n = 54), third (n = 43), and fourth author (n = 19). Of the 232 total graduate student authors, 40.0% were first authors on their work.

RQ3 asked to what extent did educational institutional authors collaborate with graduate students. The results revealed that journal readers would most often see University of Wisconsin–Madison (n = 50), University of Missouri-Columbia (n = 31), and Penn State-University Park (n = 24) in this set of sampled journal articles (see Table 3). Interestingly, the top 22 institutions represented 50.0% of graduate student authors, whereas the top 11 represented 35.0% of all graduate student authors. University of North Texas (n = 14), University of Wisconsin–Madison (n = 11), and University of Missouri-Columbia (n = 9) appeared quite often. But if one looked at the extent authors collaborated with graduate students, one would find that University of North Texas (70%), Indiana University-Bloomington (40%), and Michigan State University (39%) authors either collaborated more often based on the proportion of graduate students to authors from each institution or they were featured sole authored graduate students.

Table 3.

The Most Published Institutions of Journal Authors From 2007 to 2016.

	Frequency of authors	Frequency of graduate students	Proportion of graduate student authors
Author’s University	n	n	Proportion of graduate student authors
1. University of Wisconsin–Madison	50	11	22%
2. University of Missouri-Columbia	31	9	29%
3. Penn State University Park	24	7	29%
4. University of Texas–Austin	23	8	35%
5. University of Alabama	21	8	38%
6. Indiana University-Bloomington	20	8	40%
7. University of North Texas	20	14	70%
8. University of Georgia	19	6	32%
9. Michigan State University	18	7	39%
10. University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill	17	1	.06%
10. University of Oklahoma	17	5	29%
12. University of Florida	16	2	13%
12. University of Washington	16	2	13%
14. University of Kentucky	15	0	0%
14. Ohio State University	15	4	27%
14. University of Michigan–Ann Arbor	15	1	.07%
17. University of South Carolina	14	5	36%
18. Northwestern University	13	4	31%
19. University of Pennsylvania	12	4	33%
19. Ohio University	12	3	25%
21. University of Minnesota-Twin Cities	11	4	36%
21. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	11	3	27%
Total	410	115	28%

Discussion

Authorship in reputable scholarly journals helps scholars to secure jobs, obtain research funding, earn a promotion, and communicate their prestige. RQ1 examined to what extent graduate work was proportionately present in peer-reviewed journal research. The research question found that graduate students were present in an approximately a quarter (22.6%) of the journal articles sampled from 2007 to 2016. Atkin (1996) found that only 12.4% of sampled articles in 10 telecommunications journals were authored by graduate students during the 1985 to 1993 time period. And thus, there is evidence to support that there may be an increase in the graduate student authors present if they are present in nearly 23% of all articles in a sample taken 14 years later. The journal sample from the Atkin’s study included some journals not included in this sample (i.e., Journal of Communication, Journal of Advertising Research, Journal of Advertising, Mass Comm Review, COMM/ENT: Hastings University Law Review, Journal of Media Economics, and Free Speech Yearbook), but it is also included several journals that were in our sample (i.e., Journalism Quarterly, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, and Journal of Critical Studies in Mass Communication). However, this study’s findings did not show a significant increase of graduate authorship within the examined 10-year period. This overall evidence may suggest further exploration is necessary comparing broader time periods to determine whether graduate student authorship is increasing in journals.

The analysis of data also showed that the actual number of the graduate student authors appearing in research was 232 during this 10-year period representing 15.0% of all of authors published in the sample. Thus, these results communicate the likelihood that a reader would come across a student author in media and communication articles. Overall, they represent a small proportion of all authors.

Authorship order signals contribution as well as the collaborative practices of graduate students. RQ2 examined to what extent graduate students were senior author, and they took on the senior or first author role most often in this sample. This finding may mean that their home institution may be training them to publish research or this finding may mean that published authors are graduate research assistants that assist on the development on faculty-led research. Many tenured researchers often collaborate not to advance their own career but they collaborate with students to assist in the productivity of graduate students (Bozeman & Corley, 2004). These results suggest that graduate students should try to be lead author on research if they wish to get a job at a research-intensive institution.

However, it appears that there is a lesser evidence to support that they must publish on their own. Additional data analysis showed that there was a total of 36 articles authored by only graduate students with no faculty coauthors. This represents only 5% of the total sample. This finding may mean that faculty members expect authorship if they help students or students are not being trained to lead their own individual research stream while earning their PhD based on the results. It is recommended that graduate students identify and learn from faculty members who are both willing to share authorship and faculty members who possess a strong understanding of theory, methods, and leadership.

RQ3 explored which institutions produced the greatest amount of graduate student authors because productivity can often be traced to the home institution of the author. Highly productive institutions tend to provide more support to faculty members. Support can include lighter class loads, free time to conduct research, hiring of faculty with strong research backgrounds, making available opportunities to discuss research with faculty members, and external funding resources (Atkin, 1996; Cole & Bowers, 1973; Schweitzer, 1988).

Based on sheer number of graduate student authors, University of North Texas (n = 14), University of Wisconsin–Madison (n = 11), and University of Missouri-Columbia (n = 9) were the affiliations most often found. The University of North Texas published one single publication with 15 authors of which 14 were graduate students. Generally, these findings are in line with past research finding these programs are most likely to produce student authors. In terms of graduate support, the top 10 programs likely provide travel support for their students; expose students to diverse perspectives, theories, and methods; and encourage student coauthorship with faculty members (Neuendorf et al., 2007).

Good mentors and programs will encourage students to understand how to make theoretical, practical, or societal contributions with their work and understand how to design research that makes such contributions. And good mentors will also teach students how to have hard conversations about authorship order with people who may be in higher positions of power. These results suggest that programs will need to create a curriculum in which classes support students publishing their own work and perhaps socialization of students in the world of publishing academic work. Program leaders also can organize research teams and identify students early on who may not be publishing if their goal is to work at a research institution.

This study is limited to a particular sample of research journals, and the findings are not generalizable to other journals as well as other disciplines. One could replicate this study and compare much broader time periods to determine whether there any patterns in authorship and authorship orders. From a communication perspective, one could investigate how graduate students secure first authorship on team projects, how students interpret and navigate their roles in research collaborations, how collaboration is taught and rewarded, develop ethical standards for negatiotiating authorship order, or survey hiring committee members to assess what they examine when evaluating faculty candidates.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Serena Miller

Author Biographies

Sevgi Baykaldi is a doctoral candidate in the Information and Media PhD program at Michigan State University.

Serena Miller is an associate professor of Journalism Innovations in the School of Journalism at Michigan State University.

References

American Association of University Professors Research Office. (2017). Trends in the academic labor force, 1975-2015. https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency/background-facts

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073.

Atkin

(1996). Telecommunications research article productivity in the U.S.: 1985-1993. Journal of the Association for Communication Administration, 1, 1–11.

Austin

A. E.

(2002). Preparing the next generation of faculty: Graduate school as socialization to the academic career. The Journal of Higher Education, 73(1), 94–122.

Blake

Bodle

J. V.

Adams

E. E.

(2004). A fifteen-year census of gender and journal productivity. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 59, 156–171.

Bozeman

Corley

(2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

Brown-Wright

D. A.

Dubick

R. A.

Newman

(1997). Graduate assistantship expectation and faculty perception: Implications for mentoring and training. Journal of College Student Development, 38, 410–416.

Bunz

(2005). Publish or perish: A limited author analysis of ICA and NCA journals. Journal of Communication, 55(4), 703–720.

Carlson

Ross

(2010). Publication ethics: Conflicts, copyright, permission, and authorship. Journal of Perianesthesia Nursing, 25(4), 263–271.

10.

Carpenter

(2008). A study of graduate student authorship in journalism and mass communication journals: 1997–2006. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 63(3), 224–240.

11.

Carpenter

Makhadmeh

Thornton

L. J.

(2015). Mentorship on the doctoral level: An examination of communication mentors’ traits and functions. Communication Education, 64(3), 366–384.

12.

Cole

R. R.

Bowers

T. A.

(1973). Research article productivity of U.S. journalism faculties. Journalism Quarterly, 50, 246–254.

13.

Committee on Publication Ethics. (2003). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. http://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12.pdf

14.

Dong

Y. R.

(1998). Non-native graduate students’ thesis/dissertation writing in science: Self-reports by students and their advisors from two U.S. institutions. English for Specific Purposes, 1 7(4), 369–390.

15.

Fernandez

Wegerif

Mercer

Rojas-Drummond

(2001). Re-conceptualizing “scaffolding” and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Instruction, 36(2), 40–54.

16.

Gazni

Sugimoto

C. R.

Didegah

(2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335.

17.

Hangel

Schmidt-Pfister

(2017). Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 529–544.

18.

Hanson

S. M. H.

(1988). Collaborative research and authorship credit: Beginning guidelines. Nursing Research, 37(1), 49–52.

19.

Hickson

I. I. I.

Stacks

D. W.

Bodon

(1999). The status of research productivity in communication: 1915–1995. Communication Monographs, 66, 178–197.

20.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2020). Defining the role of authors and contributors. The Committee. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html

21.

Jassawalla

A. R.

Sashittal

H. C.

(1998). An examination of collaboration in high technology new product development processes. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 237–254.

22.

Katz

J. S.

Martin

B. R.

(1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

23.

Larivière

Desrochers

Macaluso

Mongeon

Paul-Hus

Sugimoto

C. R.

(2016). Contributorship and division of labor in knowledge production. Social Studies of Science, 46(3), 417–435.

24.

Lehman

J. D.

Schairer

W. W.

Blevins

J. L.

Sculco

P. K.

(2017). Authorship trends in 30 years of. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 32, 1684–1687.

25.

Marušic

Bošnjak

Jeroncic

(2011). A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics, and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLOS ONE, 6(9), Article e23477.

26.

McGrail

M. R.

Rickard

C. M.

Jones

(2006). Publish or perish: A systematic review of interventions to increase academic publication rates. Higher Education Research & Development, 25(1), 19–35.

27.

McNutt

M. K.

Bradford

Drazen

J. M.

Hanson

Howard

Jamieson

K. H.

Kiermer

Marcus

Pope

B. K.

Schekman

Swaminathan

Stang

P. J.

Verma

I. M.

(2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, 2557−2560. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/02/26/1715374115

28.

Melin

Persson

(1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Budapest Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.

29.

Miller

G. R.

(1979). The research team concept: An approach to graduate training. Communication Education, 28, 322–327.

30.

Neuendorf

K. A.

Skalski

P. D.

Atkin

D. J.

Kogler-Hill

S. E.

Perloff

R. M.

(2007). The view from the ivory tower: Evaluating doctoral programs in communication. Communication Reports, 20(1), 24–41.

31.

Neuman

W. R.

Davidson

Joo

Park

Y. J.

Williams

S. E.

(2008). The seven deadly sins of communication research. Journal of Communication, 5, 8220–8237.

32.

Page-Adams

Cheng

Gogineni

Shen

(1995). Establishing a group to encourage writing for publication among doctoral students. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(3), 402–407.

33.

Paglis

L. L.

Green

S. G.

Bauer

T. N.

(2006). Does advisor mentoring add value? A longitudinal study of mentoring and doctoral student outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 47(4), 451–476.

34.

Phillips

G.M.

(1979). The peculiar intimacy of graduate study: A conservative view. Communication Education, 28(4), 339–445.

35.

Reese

S. D.

(2014, March 14). Academic productivity and the problem of hyperactivity: Some cautionary words, Inside Higher ED. Retrieved from: https://www.insidehighered.com/advice/2014/03/14/cautionary-words-about-academic-productivity-and-problem-hyperactivity-essay.

36.

Schweitzer

J. C.

(1988). Research article productivity by mass communication scholars. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 65, 479–484.

37.

Street

J. M.

Rogers

W. A.

Israel

Braunack-Mayer

A. J.

(2010) Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences. Social Science & Medicine, 70: 1458–1465.

38.

Tryon

G. S.

Bishop

J. L.

Hatfield

T. A.

(2007). Doctoral students’ beliefs about authorship credit for dissertations. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 1(3), 184–192.

39.

Vincent

R. C.

(1991). Telecommunications research productivity of U.S. communication programs: 1984-1989. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 840–851.

40.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes ( Cole

John-Steiner

Scribner

Souberman

, Eds.). Harvard University Press.

41.

Wagner

C. S.

Leydesdorff

(2005). Mapping the network of global science: Comparing international co-authorships from 1990 to 2000. International Journal of Technology and Globalisation, 1(2), 185.

42.

Wang

Hicks

(2015). Scientific teams: Self-assembly, fluidness, and interdependence. Journal of Informetrics, 9(1), 197–207.

43.

Wang

Rodgers

Wang

Thorson

(2016). A seventeen-year study of graduate student authorship in advertising journals. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 71(1), 69–83.

44.

Werley

H. H.

Murphy

P. A.

Gosch

S. M.

Gottesmann

Newcomb

B. J.

(1981). Research publication assignment: Nurses’ views. Research in Nursing and Health, 4, 261–279.

45.

Winston

R. B.

Jr. (1985). A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. Journal of Counseling and Development, 63, 515–518.

46.

Wray

K. B.

(2006). Scientific authorship in the age of collaborative research. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37, 505–514.