In:Ethical Issues in Applied Linguistics Scholarship
Edited by Peter I. De Costa, Amr Rabie-Ahmed and Carlo Cinaglia
[Research Methods in Applied Linguistics 7] 2024
► pp. 296–309
Chapter 16Managing publication expectations and collaborations
On the ethics of co-authoring in Applied Linguistics
Published online: 21 November 2024
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.7.19jen
https://doi.org/10.1075/rmal.7.19jen
Abstract
Collaborative research and co-authoring are ubiquitous work practices in higher education. With
current funding models and promotion expectations, research is becoming more collaborative with publications
co-authored by two or more scholars. Macro-level ethical guidelines established by professional organizations are a
useful starting point for understanding how to approach collaborations and co-authorships, as much has been already
said about how to work responsibly within a given discipline. However, questions of ethics in research need be pursued
by tempering macro-level guidelines with micro-level considerations, such as the unique and specific challenges that
are involved in working on diverse empirical topics. To this end, we draw on our experiences co-authoring publications
to explore the relationship between micro-level considerations and macro-level guidelines in applied linguistics
research. We explore the complexities of distributing responsibilities to a team of researchers, managing uneven power
dynamics, and negotiating the authorship order for contributors. By grounding our discussion within the context of
actual work done in collaboration by both authors, we provide readers with concrete examples of how to attend to the
ethics of collaborative research and co-authoring.
Article outline
- Introduction
- Macro-ethics versus micro-ethics in applied linguistics research
- Macro-ethics of co-authorship in applied linguistics
- Micro-ethics of co-authorship in applied linguistics
- Selecting collaborators
- Roles and responsibilities
- Ethics specialist
- Power dynamics
- Conclusion
Note References
References (22)
American Association for Applied Linguistics. AAAL promotion and tenure
guidelines (n.d.). Retrieved
on 26 June
2024 from [URL]
American Association for Applied
Linguistics. (n.d.). AAAL ethics
guidelines. Retrieved on 26 June 2024 from [URL]
American Educational Research
Association. (February 2011). Research
ethics. Retrieved on 26
June 2024 from [URL]
Aliukonis, V., Poškutė, M., & Gefenas, E. (2020). Perish
or publish dilemma: Challenges to responsible
authorship. Medicina, 56(3), 123.
American Educational Research
Association. (2011). Code of
ethics. Educational
Researcher, 40(3), 145–156.
Baralt, M., & Darcy Mahoney, A. (2020). Bilingualism
and the executive function advantage in preterm-born children. Cognitive
Development, 55, 100931.
Castellano, S., & Cermelli, P. (2015). Preys’
exploitation of predators’ fear: When the caterpillar plays the
Gruffalo. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological
Sciences 282(1820), 20151786.
Conference on College Composition and
Communication. (31 March 2015). CCCC
guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in composition
studies. Retrieved on 26 June 2024 from [URL]
De Costa, P. I., Lee, J., Rawal, H., & Li, W. (2020). Ethics
in applied linguistics research. In J. McKinley & H. Rose (Eds.), The
Routledge handbook of research methods in applied
linguistics (pp. 122–130). Routledge.
Ductor, L. (2015). Does
co-authorship lead to higher academic productivity? Oxford Bulletin of
Economics and
Statistics, 77(3), 385–407.
Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics,
reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280.
Helgesson, G., Master, Z., & Bülow, W. (2021). How
to handle co-authorship when not everyone’s research contributions make it into the
paper. Science and Engineering
Ethics, 27.
Kubaniyova, M. (2008). Rethinking
research ethics in contemporary applied linguistics: The tension between macro-ethical and micro-ethical
perspectives in situated research. The Modern Language
Journal, 92(4), 503–518.
Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship
networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research
Policy, 42, 1515–1530.
Luiten, J. D., Verhemel, A., Dahi, Y., Luiten, E. J. T., & Gadjradj, P. S. (2019). Honorary
authorships in surgical literature. World Journal of
Surgery, 43, 696–703.
Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Berzofsky, M. E. (2020). Assessing
the perceived prevalence of research fraud among faculty at research-intensive universities in the
USA. Accountability in
Research, 27(7), 457–475.
Shen, S. X. (2016). Negotiating
authorship in Chinese universities: How organizations shape cycles of credit in
science. Science, Technology, & Human
Values, 41(4), 660–685.
Smith, D. (2003). Five
principles for research ethics: Cover your bases with these ethical
strategies. American Psychological
Association. Retrieved on 26 June 2024 from [URL]
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific
collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and
Technology, 41(1), 643–681.
Stieb, D. M., Evans, G. J., To, T. M., Lackey, P. S. J., Shiraiwa, M., Minet, L., Brook, J. R., Burnett, R. T., & Weichenthal, S. A. (2021). Within-city
variation in reactive oxygen species from fine particle air pollution and
COVID-19. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care
Medicine, 204(2), 168–177.
