Scientists and scientific institutions must earn public trust by upholding high ethical standards.
Scientists often urge the public to trust in science with the justification that many amenities of modern life – from medical drugs and devices to computers and cellphones – were made possible by advances in science and technology [1]. These are appealing examples, but what do they say about the future benefits of science?
Science is more than the sum of its products; it is a process based on critical feedback and review with the capacity for self-correction [2, 3]. Scientists also urge the public to place its trust not in individual scientists or specific scientific results but in a scientific process that evolves as new evidence emerges and interpretations of evidence are adapted [1, 3].
For this argument to be convincing, processes within the scientific enterprise, particularly in scientific publishing, must be worthy of trust. Deficits in these processes undermine trust in the scientific enterprise as a whole [4].
Scientific publishing as an essential but vulnerable link
Scientific journals play a key role in communicating scientific findings [1-4]. The performance of individual scientists is judged by their scientific publications and institutions rely on publication metrics for the assessment of their scientific staff [5]. Since authorship is so important, it is worth looking at one example of an ethical lapse. Although not the worst type of ethical failure that can arise, two cases at leading Swiss institutions have recently been reported.
Unearned or gift co-authorships
A 2013 report by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences clearly states that unearned or gift co-authorships are a violation of scientific integrity. The report prohibits “colleagues with only marginal involvement listing each other as authors in their publications, or a senior academic not involved in the research being added to the byline” [6].
Pressure from senior colleagues to assign gift co-authorships was resisted by two talented, high-performing, junior researchers at preeminent Swiss institutions of higher education and research. A case at the University Hospital and University of Zurich was reported in the print media [7] and a case at the Paul Scherrer Institute in the ETH Domain was reported in the print media [8] and, even earlier, online [9]. Both junior researchers involved were recipients of funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation. Thus, the pressure on them and the negative consequences for their projects and careers constitute a waste of taxpayer money [10].
Instruments to back up policy
Gift co-authorships are not just an issue in Switzerland. Survey results have shown the problem to be widespread in Europe [11]. Despite clear prohibitions at the policy level, instruments for policy implementation and the will to implement policy are missing. The Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) model [12], which has already been adopted by numerous scientific publishers, could provide the basis for such an instrument. The CRediT model could be strengthened by some field-specific standardization, including estimation of proportional contributions by co-authors. Institutions of higher education and research could require that lead authors complete CRediT templates for all manuscripts. This would certainly be a reasonable expectation on the part of Swiss taxpayers who provide such generous support for research.
Addressing broader issues
Even focusing on scientific publishing, gift co-authorship is only one example of much broader issues. Many of these issues could be addressed by prioritizing quality over quantity, recognizing that effort is needed to assess quality [13]. Indicators (such as journal impact factors) should not be used as proxies for quality. These recommendations are central tenets of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, DORA [14], which should be endorsed by all Swiss institutions of higher education and research.
Public trust in science is critical to the functioning of today’s societies, in which many challenges and opportunities involve complex scientific and technical questions. Scientists and scientific institutions must earn the public trust by refusing to tolerate unethical behavior.
Janet Hering is Director Emerita of the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science & Technology (Eawag), Professor Emerita of Environmental Biogeochemistry at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zürich (ETHZ) and Professor Emerita of Environmental Chemistry at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Lausanne (EPFL). She is a former Chairwoman of the ETH Women Professors Forum.
References and sources
[1] Albert, B. Hopkin, K. and Roberts, K. (no date) “Why Trust Science”, https://whytrustscience.org.uk/essay/
[2] ISC (2023) “The Case for Reform of Scientific Publishing”, https://council.science/publications/reform-of-scientific-publishing/
[3] Oreskes, N. (2019) “Science Isn’t Always Perfect—But We Should Still Trust It”, TIME Ideas, https://time.com/5709691/why-trust-science/
[4] Müller, M.J., Landsberg, B. and Ried, J. (2014) “Fraud in science: a plea for a new culture in research”, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 68: 411–415, doi:10.1038/ejcn.2014.17
[5] AGU Editorial Network (2024) “Challenges Facing Scientific Publishing in the Field of Earth & Space Sciences”, AGU Advances, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2024AV001334
[6] Hess, C.W., Brückner, C., Kaiser, T., Mauron, A., Wahli, U.J., and Salathé, M. (2013) “Authorship in scientific publications”, https://api.swiss-academies.ch/site/assets/files/4413/akademien_autorschaft_en.pdf
[7] Demuth, Y. (2024) “Nachwuchs-Professorin schmeisst hin”, Beobachter, June 7, p. 24.
[8] Amrein, M. and Donzé, R. (2024) “Mit fremden Federn geschmückt: An einerbedeutenden ETH-Forschungsanstalt ist ein Streit um unerlaubte Autorschaft entbrannt”, Neue Zürcher Zeitung am Sonntag, July 21, p. 9
[9] Schneider, L. (2024) “The Paul Scherrer Rules”, For Better Science, https://forbetterscience.com/2024/03/25/the-paul-scherrer-rules/
[10] Boivin, N., Hering, J. G., Täuber, S. and Keller, U. (2023) “How your money is helping subsidise sexism in academia – and what you can do about it”, The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/how-your-money-is-helping-subsidise-sexism-in-academia-and-what-you-can-do-about-it-218347
[11] Chawla, D.S. (2023) “Unearned authorship pervades science”, Nature Index, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00016-1
[12] Contributor Role Taxonomy, https://credit.niso.org/
[13] Hering, J. (2019). “Counting is not enough - rediscovering the value of narrative”. Elephant in the Lab. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2562817
[14] Declaration on Research Assessment, https://sfdora.org/
Comments