Hyperauthorship:Apostmodernperversionorevidence Ofastructuralshiftinscholarlycommunication Practices?

Hyperauthorship:APostmodernPerversionorEvidence ofaStructuralShiftinScholarlyCommunication Practices? BlaiseCronin SchoolofLibraryandInformationScience,IndianaUniversity,Bloomington,IN47405-1901.E-mail: [email protected] Classicalassumptionsaboutthenatureandethicalen- uel,1997).Curiously,theperceivedseriousnessoftheprob- tailmentsofauthorship(thestandardmodel)arebeing lemdoesnotfindechoinotherscientificfields.Thisarticle challengedbydevelopmentsinscientificcollaboration andmultipleauthorship.Inthebiomedicalresearch (a)beginswithabrief,historicaloverviewofscholarly community,multipleauthorshiphasincreasedtosuch publishing,focusingontheroleoftheauthorandthe anextentthatthetrustworthinessofthescientificcom- constitutionoftrustinscientificcommunication;(b)offers municationsystemhasbeencalledintoquestion.Doc- animpressionisticsurveyandanalysisofrecentdevelop- umentedabuses,suchashonorificauthorship,havese- mentsinthebiomedicalliterature;(c)explorestheextentto riousimplicationsintermsoftheacknowledgmentof authority,allocationofcredit,andassigningofaccount- whichdeviantpublishingpracticesinbiomedicalpublishing ability.Withinthebiomedicalworldithasbeenproposed areafunctionofsociocognitiveandstructuralcharacteris- thatauthorsbereplacedbylistsofcontributors(the ticsofthedisciplinebycomparingbiomedicinewithhigh radicalmodel),whosespecificinputstoagivenstudy energyphysics,theonlyotherfieldwhichappearstoexhibit wouldberecordedunambiguously.Thewiderimplica- comparablehyperauthorshiptendencies;and(d)assesses tionsofthe‘hyperauthorship’phenomenonforscholarly publicationareconsidered. theextenttowhichcurrenttrendsinbiomedicalcommuni- cationmaybeaharbingerofdevelopmentsinotherdisci- plines. Introduction Inrecentyears,literallyscoresofsurveys,studies,and ABriefHistoryofAuthorship opinionpieceshavebeenpublishedintheexpansivebio- medicalliteratureonthesubjectofmultipleauthorship AccordingtoManguel(1997,pp.182–183),theearliest (e.g.,King,2000).Whilecoauthorshipandcollaboration namedauthorinhistorywastheMesopotamianPrincess, studieshavebeencarriedoutinmanydisciplinesandfields Enheduanna,who,morethan4,000yearsago,signedher (seeBordons&Gomez,2000forarecentreview),thescale nameattheendoftheclaytablets,onwhichwereetched ofthephenomenonandassociatedethicalabuseshave songsinhonorofInanna,goddessofloveandwar.Overthe provedtobesingularlyproblematicinthebiomedicaldo- centuries,however,certaingenresoftext(e.g.,epicpoems, main(e.g.,Houston&Moher,1996).Aswillbecomeclear, sagas)havenotalwaysrequiredauthors:“Theiranonymity thecentralissueisnotjustoneofmultipleauthorship,but wasignoredbecausetheirrealorsupposedagewasa tointroduceaneologismofhyperauthorship—massiveco- sufficientguaranteeoftheirauthenticity”(Foucault,1977, authorshiplevels.Someconsequencesofthesetrendshave p.125).ForBarthes(1977,pp.142–143),though,theauthor beenextensiveeditorialcommentaryandcorrespondencein reallyis“amodernfigure...emergingfromtheMiddle theleadingbiomedicaljournals,revisededitorialguidelines AgeswithEnglishempiricism,Frenchrationalismandthe forauthorsandcollaboratorssubmittingtoreputablejour- personalfaithoftheReformation.”Whilecriticaltheorists nals,and,mostradically,aproposaltoreplaceauthors mayquestionthe“prestigeofauthorship”and“allmanifes- entirelywithlistsofcontributors(Rennie,Yank,&Eman- tationsofauthor-ity”(Birkerts,1994,pp.158–159)— whichhelpsexplainthepredilectionforpostmodernistand eschatologicaltitlessuchasTheDeathoftheAuthor(Bar- ReceivedJuly12,2000;acceptedDecember20,2000 thes,1977),WhatisanAuthor?(Foucault,1977),andThe DeathofLiterature(Kernan,1990)—thereislittledoubt ©2001JohnWiley&Sons,Inc. ● Publishedonline13March2001 thatboththesymbolicandmaterialconsequencesofauthor- JOURNALOFTHEAMERICANSOCIETYFORINFORMATIONSCIENCEANDTECHNOLOGY,52(7):558–569,2001 ship today are rather more far-reaching than in Enheduan- Authorial rights were not always asserted with the kind na’s time. To state the obvious, public affirmation of au- of forcefulness we take for granted today—think of the thorship is absolutely central to the operation of the aca- often heated disputes which routinely flare up over the demic reward system, whether one is a classicist, ordering, inclusion, and elision of names attached to mul- sociologist, or experimental physicist. Authorship (and the tiauthored papers (Wilcox, 1998). As Rennie and Flanagin recognition that flows therefrom) is the undisputed coin of (1994) remind us, there is no standard method for determin- the realm in academia: it embodies the enterprise of schol- ing order, nor any universalistic criteria for conferring au- arship (Bourdieu, 1991; Cronin, 1984, 2000; Franck, 1999). thorship status: practices vary greatly, within and across But while the traditional model of authorship persists, most disciplines, ranging from alphabetization through weighted noticeably in the humanities, it is no longer the sole or listing to reverse seniority (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel, dominant model in certain scientific specialties. 1970; Riesenberg & Lundberg, 1990). Certainly, much has Before the precursors of today’s scholarly journals es- changed since the 17th century, when there was no estab- tablished themselves in the second half of the 17th century, lished convention for the naming of authors of scientific scientists communicated via letters. Letter writing was the communications. As Katzen (1980, p. 191) notes in her principal means for exchanging ideas and experimental re- analysis of early volumes of the Philosophical Transac- sults (Kronick, 2001). Gentleman scholars, including such tions: prodigious correspondents as Samuel Hartlib, intelligencer extraordinaire, Henry Oldenberg, secretary of the Royal . no attempt is made to give prominence to the author of Society in London, or Friar Mersenne in France, were the the article . there is generally no reference at all to the scientific community’s prototypical gatekeepers, orchestrat- author in the heading that signals a new communication. If ing the flow and documentation of ideas on behalf of their the author is referred to in the title, it is likely to be in an coeval peers across Europe (Knight, 1976; Rayward, 1992). oblique form . we are at the threshold between anony- The establishment, in France, in 1665, of Le Journal des mous and eponymous authorship. Sçavans and, some months later, in London, of the Philo- sophical Transactions of the Royal Society, or, as it was Foucault (1977, p. 126), in fact, talks of scientific texts originally called, the Philosophical Transactions: Giving “accepted on their own merits and positioned within an some Accompt of the present Undertakings, Studies and anonymous and coherent conceptual system of established labours of the Ingenious in many considerable parts of the truths and methods of verification.” This, as Shapin (1995, World, constituted the beginnings of the journal-based p. 178) notes in his brilliant study of trust in 17th-century scholarly communication system as we know it today. English science, was in keeping with prevailing notions of Nonetheless, letter writing continued as a medium for the civility and gentlemanly conduct in society-at-large: “reluc- informal exchange of information and for requesting fellow tant authorship . was a standard trope of early modern scientists to replicate experiments (Manten, 1980, p. 8). culture,” albeit one which withered swiftly in the face of Despite the acknowledged importance of these two con- plagiaristic practices. Inconceivable though the idea of temporaneous publishing developments, much has changed anonymous authorship may be in today’s highly competi- in terms of the ways, both instrumental and stylistic, in tive publishing marketplace, where reputation, career suc- which scientists communicate the results of their research to cess, and, ultimately, remuneration are tightly coupled with their peer communities. However, in the intervening 300- publication salience and citation (Cronin, 1996), the impor- plus years, certain symbolic and rhetorical practices, nota- tance of claim-staking and priority determination were re- bly the assertion and defense of authorship, and all the ally only beginning to be perceived as critical issues in the presumptive rights associated therewith, have remained formative world of 17th-century scientific communication. center stage. In the 17th century, the business of authorship, The standard model of scholarly publishing assumes a as the business of science itself, was much less complicated work written by an author. There is typically a single author and contentious than today—which is not to say that priority who receives full credit for the opus in question. By the disputes were unheard of, that egos were never bruised, or same token, the named author is held accountable for all that “the bauble fame” did not come into play in earlier claims made in the text, excluding those attributed to others times. The following excerpt from one of Charles Darwin’s via citations. The appropriation of credit and allocation of (admittedly much later) letters makes touchingly clear the responsibility thus go hand-in-hand, which makes for fairly recurrent tension between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, straightforward social accounting. The ethically informed, which he, and countless other scientists, both then and now, lone scholar has long been a popular figure, in both fact and have experienced in the course of their careers: “I am got scholarly mythology. Historically, authorship has been most deeply interested in my subject; though I wish I could viewed as a solitary profession,

Load more