And the credit goes to - Ghost and honorary authorship among social scientists.

The proliferation of team-authored academic work has led to the proliferation of two kinds of authorship misconduct: ghost authorship, in which contributors are not listed as authors and honorary authorship, in which non-contributors are listed as authors. Drawing on data from a survey of 2,222 social scientists from around the globe, we study the prevalence of authorship misconduct in the social sciences. Our results show that ghost and honorary authorship occur frequently here and may be driven by social scientists' misconceptions about authorship criteria. Our results show that they frequently deviate from a common point of authorship reference (the ICMJE authorship criteria). On the one hand, they tend to award authorship more broadly to more junior scholars, while on the other hand, they may withhold authorship from senior scholars if those are engaged in collaborations with junior scholars. Authorship misattribution, even if it is based on a misunderstanding of authorship criteria rather than egregious misconduct, alters academic rankings and may constitute a threat to the integrity of science. Based on our findings, we call for journals to implement contribution disclosures and to define authorship criteria more explicitly to guide and inform researchers as to what constitutes authorship in the social sciences. Our results also hold implications for research institutions, universities, and publishers to move beyond authorship-based citation and publication rankings in hiring and tenure processes and instead to focus explicitly on contributions in team-authored publications.

How prevalent is plagiarism among college students? Anonymity preserving evidence from Austrian undergraduates.

Plagiarism in academia is endangering the veracity of any discipline. Yet, estimating the actual prevalence of plagiarism is difficult due to the sensitive nature of freely admitting actual offenses. Respondents to questions on plagiarism oftentimes conceal potential misconduct and thus refrain from truthfully responding to such a sensitive question. In this work, we therefore employ item-count techniques to provide a better estimate of the prevalence in academia using a student sample. Our results drawing on 428 students from an Austrian university reveal a high prevalence of plagiarism (around 22 percentage points). We also assess the robustness of the findings using placebo measurements. Our results suggest a much higher prevalence of plagiarism then comparison studies when respondents can be convincingly assured of their anonymity.

What Crisis? Management Researchers' Experiences with and Views of Scholarly Misconduct.

This research presents the results of a survey regarding scientific misconduct and questionable research practices elicited from a sample of 1215 management researchers. We find that misconduct (research that was either fabricated or falsified) is not encountered often by reviewers nor editors. Yet, there is a strong prevalence of misrepresentations (method inadequacy, omission or withholding of contradictory results, dropping of unsupported hypotheses). When it comes to potential methodological improvements, those that are skeptical about the empirical body of work being published see merit in replication studies. Yet, a sizeable majority of editors and authors eschew open data policies, which points to hidden costs and limited incentives for data sharing in management research.