"The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice.

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.

Good friend or good student? An interview study of perceived conflicts between personal and academic integrity among students in three European countries.

Students are often reluctant to report the academic dishonesty of their peers. Loyalty to friends and classmates has previously been identified as an important reason for this. This paper explores loyalty conflicts among students from upper secondary school, through bachelor's, to Ph.D. level. Drawing on semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 72) conducted in Denmark, Ireland and Hungary, we show that loyalty considerations among students can be complex and draw on a range of norms including responsibility. The study demonstrates how students are often willing to assume substantial personal responsibility for dealing with the academic dishonesty of a peer, often preferring this to reporting. However, when deciding on the right course of action, they also perceive tensions between the norms of the good researcher and student and their own norms of being a good friend and person. The loyalty considerations and tension were identified in all three countries and across the educational levels, which suggests that this is a cross-cultural challenge. We argue that institutions should formally decide whether they want students to take some degree of responsibility themselves for addressing less serious cases of academic dishonesty and communicate their decision to their students.