Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?
Article first published online: 13 MAR 2001
Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Volume 52, Issue 7, pages 558–569, 2001
How to Cite
Cronin, B. (2001), Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 52: 558–569. doi: 10.1002/asi.1097
- Issue published online: 26 APR 2001
- Article first published online: 13 MAR 2001
- Manuscript Accepted: 20 DEC 2000
- Manuscript Revised: 12 JUL 2000
Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the ‘hyperauthorship’ phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered.