Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Publish, Perish, or Salami Slice? Authorship Ethics in an Emerging Field

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Researchers in several academic fields have indicated an increase in academic authorship disputes and the utilization of unethical authorship practices over the past few decades. This trend has been attributed to a variety of factors such as vague authorship guidelines, power disparities between researchers, dissimilar disciplinary and/or journal practices, and a lack of guidance for emerging scholars. As a rapidly emerging academic field, sport management (and its connected sub-fields) maintains the propensity for unclear procedures due to the various departments, schools, and colleges the field calls home (e.g., kinesiology, sport science, education, business), as well as the wide variety of journals that the field’s scholarship resides in. This situation is similar to many emerging or expanding fields as they navigate the university landscape of more established disciplines and fields. Utilizing a three-round Delphi survey method, the current research examined expert opinion on authorship practices in sport management scholarship. Through a combination of open-ended, response, and Likert-type questions, the expert survey attempted to identify areas of consensus and non-consensus in an effort to determine the current status of publication practices in the field, as well as ascertain areas of need for future study and improvement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Adapted from Bowers et al. (2014, p. 569)

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. One expert expressed dissatisfaction with using the term “take advantage” in Q7 of Round I (“Appendix 1”) and selected not to respond to the query.

References

  • ABDC. (2015). ABDC journal quality list 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.abdc.edu.au/pages/abdc-journal-quality-list-2016.html.

  • American Psychological Association. (2015). Publication practices and responsible authorship. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/publication/.

  • Authorship guidelines. (2014). Human Kinetics journals: The Journal of Sport Management. Retrieved from: http://journals.humankinetics.com/authorship-guidelines-for-jsm/authorship-guidelines-for-jsm/apaq-authorship-guidelines.

  • Bailey, C. D. (2015). Psychopathy, academic accountants’ attitudes toward unethical research practices, and publication success. The Accounting Review, 90, 1307–1332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blobaum, P. M. (2010). Update: Resources for supporting the APA publication style. Journal of Hospital Librarianship, 10, 197–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowers, M. T., Green, B. C., & Seifried, C. S. (2014). “Let the marketplace be the judge”: The founders reflect on the origins and trajectory of NASSM. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 565–587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, K. W. (1979). Delphi technique: Expanding applications. North Central Association Quarterly, 54, 377–385.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cabral-Cardoso, C. (2004). Ethical misconduct in the business school: A case of plagiarism that turned bitter. Journal of Business Ethics, 49, 75–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalip, L. (2006). Toward a distinctive sport management discipline. Journal of Sport Management, 20, 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chelladurai, P. (2014). Managing organizations for sport and physical activity. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

    Google Scholar 

  • Costa, C. A. (2005). The status and future of sport management: A Delphi study. Journal of Sport Management, 19, 117–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coupe, T. (2004). What do we know about ourselves? On the economics of economics. KYKLOS, 57, 197–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Covell, D. (2004). Attachment, allegiance and a convergent application of stakeholder theory to Ivy League Athletics (pp. 14–26). Winter: International Sports Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Custer, R. L., Scarcella, J. A., & Stewart, B. R. (1999). The modified Delphi technique: A rotational modification. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 15, 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyphert, F. R., & Grant, W. L. (1971). The Delphi technique: A case study. Phi Delta Kappan, 52, 272–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N. (1969). An experimental study of group opinion: The Delphi method. Futures, 1, 408–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, T. (1987). Methods for analyzing data from Delphi panels: Some evidence from a forecasting study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 31, 79–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliott, T. L., Marquis, L. M., & Neal, C. S. (2013). Business ethics perspectives: Faculty plagiarism and fraud. Journal of Business Ethics, 112, 91–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erffmeyer, R. C., Erffmeyer, E. S., & Lane, I. M. (1986). The Delphi technique: An empirical evaluation of the optimal number of rounds. Group and Organization Studies, 11, 120–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etxeberria, I. A., Garayar, A., & Sanchez, J. A. C. (2015). Development of sustainability reports for farming operations in the Basque country using the Delphi method. Revista de Contabilidad, 18, 44–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferkins, L., & Shilbury, D. (2015). The stakeholder dilemma in sport governance: Toward the notion of “stakeowner”. Journal of Sport Management, 29, 93–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanaroas, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D., et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 360, 1301–1302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. London: Pitman Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, M. T., Parent, M. M., & Mason, D. S. (2004). Building a framework for issues management in sport through stakeholder theory. European Sport Management Quarterly, 4, 170–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta, T. J. (1999). Authorship: “Law” and order. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 297–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giorgini, V., Mecca, J. T., Gibson, C., Medeiros, K., Mumford, M. D., Connelly, S., et al. (2015). Researcher perceptions of ethical guidelines and codes of conduct. Accountability in Research, 22, 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gray, P., & Jordan, S. (2012). Supervisors and academic integrity: Supervisors as exemplars and mentors. Journal of Academic Ethics, 10, 299–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M., & Van Buren, H. J., III. (2010). Trust and stakeholder theory Trustworthiness in the organization-stakeholder relationship. Journal of Business Ethics, 95, 425–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guide for authors. (2015). Elsevier—Sport management review. Retrieved from: http://www.elsevier.com/journals/sport-management-review/1441-3523/guide-for-authors#9100.

  • Gundersen, D. E., Capozzoli, E. A., & Rajamma, R. K. (2008). Learned ethical behavior: An academic perspective. Journal of Education for Business, 83, 315–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Honig, B., & Bedi, A. (2012). The fox in the hen house: A critical examination of plagiarism among members of the Academy of Management. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 11, 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • ICMJE. (2015). Defining the role of authors and contributors. Retrieved from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.

  • Jones, A. (2000). Changing traditions of authorship. In A. Jones & F. McLellan (Eds.), Ethical issues in biomedical publication (pp. 3–29). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Academy of Management Review, 24, 206–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFollette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print—Fraud, plagiarism, and misconduct in scientific publishing. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). Introduction. In H. A. Linstone & M. Turoff (Eds.), The Delphi method: Techniques and applications (pp. 1–12). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linton, J. D., Tierney, R., & Walsh, S. T. (2014). Publish or perish: How are research and reputation related. Serials Review, 37, 244–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ludwig, B. G. (1994). Internationalizing extension: An exploration of the characteristics evident in a state university extension system that achieved internationalization. Doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.

  • Ludwig, B. (1997). Predicting the future: Have you considered using the Delphi methodology? Journal of Extension, 35, 1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ma, Z., Liang, D., Yu, K.-H., & Lee, Y. (2012). Most cited business ethics publications: Mapping the intellectual structure of business ethics studies in 2001–2008. Business Ethics: A European Review, 21, 286–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martino, J. (1983). Technological forecasting for decision making (2nd ed.). New York: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mock, R. P., Savage, A., & Simkin, M. G. (2010). The ethics of indemnity clauses in academic publication contracts. Issues in Accounting Education, 25, 267–278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffatt, B. (2011a). How authorship guidelines in bioethics can ensure fairness and accountability. American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 26–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moffatt, B. (2011b). Responsible authorship: Why researchers must forgo honorary authorship. Accountability in Research, 18, 76–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2009). On being a scientist: A guide to responsible conduct in research (3rd ed.). Washington: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, J. I. (2014). Sport without management. Journal of Sport Management, 28, 603–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, R., Freeman, R. E., & Wicks, A. C. (2003). What stakeholder theory is not. Business Ethics Quarterly, 13, 479–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rankings. (2014). Maclean’s. Retrieved from: http://www.macleans.ca/education/unirankings/.

  • Resnik, D. B., & Master, Z. (2011). Criteria for authorship in bioethics. American Journal of Bioethics, 11, 17–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, G., Wright, D., & Bulger, F. (1991). The Delphi technique: A re-evaluation of research and theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39, 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Safa, M. (2012). Ethics in publication: To be practices or not to be. International Journal of Business and Management Services, 5, 77–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sagas, M., & Wigley, B. J. (2014). Gray area ethical leadership in the NCAA: The ethics of doing the wrong things right. Journal of Intercollegiate Sport, 7, 40–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shamoo, A. E., & Resnik, D. B. (2009). Responsible conduct of research (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff, M., & Hiltz, S. R. (1996). Computer based Delphi process. In M. Adler & E. Ziglio (Eds.), Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi method and its application to social policy and public health (pp. 56–88). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • WAME. (2015). Recommendations on publication ethics policies for medical journals. Retrieved from: http://www.wame.org/about/recommendations-on-publication-ethics-policie.

  • Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sport Science, Belmont University, 1900 Belmont Blvd., Nashville, TN, 37212, USA

    Adam G. Pfleegor

  2. University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, MA, USA

    Matthew Katz

  3. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

    Matthew T. Bowers

Authors
  1. Adam G. Pfleegor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew Katz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Matthew T. Bowers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adam G. Pfleegor.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest pertaining to the current study.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Round I Survey

  • Q1. In your opinion, what types of scholarly responsibilities should warrant authorship on a manuscript?

  • Q2. In your opinion, what types of scholarly responsibilities should warrant acknowledgment, but not authorship on a manuscript?

  • Q3. In your opinion, what types of scholarly responsibilities should not warrant authorship or acknowledgment on a manuscript?

  • Q4. In your opinion, what forms of common authorship practices do you consider ethically questionable?

  • Q5. In your opinion, what forms (if any) of ethically questionable authorship practices are prevalent in sport management research?

  • Q6. Describe the ideal relationship between a sport management mentor and a doctoral level advisee.

  • Q7. In your opinion, do some sport management mentors take advantage of their doctoral advisees during the research process?

Appendix 2: Round II Survey

  • Q1a. In your opinion, are their circumstances that would allow authorship without a scholar actually writing any segment of the manuscript?

  • Q1b. In your opinion, are there (or should there be) special considerations for dissertation advisors in regard to authorship guidelines/standards?

  • Q2a. In your opinion, do some sport management scholars consider the prestige of the individual prior to determining whether their efforts warrant acknowledgment?

  • Q3a. In your own research endeavors, what are the factors that help you determine whether an individual’s data collection and/or analysis warrant authorship or acknowledgment?

  • Q3b. In your opinion, if a graduate student completes a classroom assignment at a high level, and you encourage them to submit for publication and guide them through the process, does this action warrant authorship or acknowledgment?

  • Q4a. In your opinion, how would you describe self-plagiarism? Specifically, what is the appropriate length of “duplication” (if any) and is it appropriate to reuse or reprocess data and/or results if the theoretical lens of the manuscript has changed?

  • Q4b. In your opinion, would a philosophical change and/or complete elimination of the tenure process reduce the amount of ethically questionable authorship practices?

  • Q5a. In your opinion, are there any opportunities to minimize or eliminate the practice of quid pro quo?

  • Q5b. Salami slicing…was indicated as the most ubiquitous ethically questionable practice in sport scholarship by the panel. What steps can reviewers and/or editors take in order to eliminate this practice?

  • Q5c. As a selected expert in our field, how concerned are you over the utilization of salami slicing in our discourse’s top journals?

  • Q6a. Do you believe that there is a lack of quality mentors in our discourse? If yes, what steps can scholars take to ensure doctoral students are receiving the most comprehensive education?

  • Q7a. How would you view a mentor instilling a policy that required the inclusion of his/her name on all manuscripts produced under their supervision. Would your opinion change in the mentor informed potential students of this policy prior to beginning their program of study?

  • Q7b. Would you consider directly addressing, or informing departmental administration, if you felt a colleague was taking advantage of his/her doctoral students from a research perspective?

Appendix 3: Round III Statements of Consensus

Item

Mean (SD)

1. A scholar can be listed as an author without partaking in any of the actual writing of the manuscript

3 (2.14)

2. The high number of authors on manuscripts in sport scholarship is problematic to the fields within sport scholarship

3.75 (1.91)

3. APA guidelines concerning ethical authorship practices are clear

4.5 (1.51)

4. The number of authors on manuscripts in sport scholarship has increased over the past 10 years

4.63 (1.60)

5. Sport scholarship advisors deserve to be included as an author on their student’s manuscript even if they do not meet what you consider the standard rules of authorship

1.88 (1.36)

6. It is appropriate for an advisor to be listed as an author on all manuscripts produced from a former mentee’s dissertation

2.13 (0.99)

7. The professional relationship and communication between a mentor and mentee is important in establishing high-level research

6.63 (0.74)

8. A focus on research tasks and technical advice between mentors and mentees is important in establishing high-level research

6.13 (0.83)

9. Substantial data collection warrants authorship

2.75 (1.28)

10. Substantial data analysis warrants authorship

4 (2.14)

11. I would be reticent in hiring a potential candidate whose primary publication record centered on the analysis of data

4.75 (2.05)

12. Guiding a student through the submission process for a paper completed for classwork warrants authorship

3 (2)

13. Reusing a data set from a previous manuscript in a new manuscript is appropriate if the theoretical lens of the new manuscript has changed

3.88 (1.73)

14. Self-plagiarism is currently a problem in sport scholarship

3.88 (2.23)

15. Changing at minimum every third or fourth word from a previously published text avoids self-plagiarism

3.57 (2.07)

16. A scholar’s drive for recognition within the field is responsible for unethical authorship practices

4.5 (1.93)

17. The current tenure and promotion system encourages unethical authorship practices

4.13 (2.23)

18. “Bean counting” (i.e., counting the number of peer-reviewed manuscripts) is a problem in the fields of sport scholarship

4.63 (1.85)

19. There is no way to minimize the practice of quid pro quo in sport scholarship

3 (1.83)

20. Editorial review boards are responsible for minimizing the practice of salami slicing in sport scholarship

4.83 (1.17)

21. Quid pro quo is currently a problem in sport scholarship

3.86 (1.07)

22. Salami slicing is currently a problem in sport scholarship.

4.71 (1.50)

23. I have confidence in the quality of editors in sport scholarship

5.63 (0.52)

24. I have confidence in the quality of reviewers in sport scholarship

4.63 (1.69)

25. There is a lack of quality doctoral mentors in our discourse

4.88 (1.73)

26. There should be a minimum level of research productivity before a scholar can take on a doctoral student as their sole advisor (i.e., not co-advising)

6.75 (0.46)

  1. For the final round, the panel of experts were solicited to select their level of agreement with statements of consensus (or non-consensus) that emerged from Rounds II and II utilizing the following seven-point Likert-type scale: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = somewhat disagree, 4 = undecided, 5 = somewhat agree, 6 = agree, 7 = strongly agree

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pfleegor, A.G., Katz, M. & Bowers, M.T. Publish, Perish, or Salami Slice? Authorship Ethics in an Emerging Field. J Bus Ethics 156, 189–208 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3578-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3578-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation