IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/evarev/v39y2015i1p19-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Guest Authors or Ghost Inventors? Inventorship and Authorship Attribution in Academic Science

Author

Listed:
  • Francesco Lissoni
  • Fabio Montobbio

Abstract

Background: Authorship and inventorship are the key attribution rights that contribute to a scientist’s reputation and professional achievement. This article discusses the concepts of coinventorship and coauthorship in the legal and sociological literature, as well as journals’ publication guidelines and technology transfer offices’ recommendations. It discusses also the relative importance of social and legal norms in the allocation of scientific credit. Method: This article revises critically the literature on inventorship and authorship in academic science and derives some policy implications on the institutional mechanisms allocating scientific credit. It reports and assesses the recent empirical evidence on the importance of social norms for the attribution of inventorship and authorship in teams of scientists. Finally, it discusses those norms from a social welfare perspective. Result: The social norms that regulate the distribution of authorship and inventorship do not reflect exclusively the relative contribution of each team member but also the members’ relative seniority or status. In the case of inventorship, such social norms appear to be as important as the legal norms whose respect is often invoked by technology transfer officers. Conclusion: Authorship and inventorship appear to be obsolete because they do not capture the increasing division of labor and responsibility typical of contemporary scientific research teams. The informative value of both authorship and inventorship attributions may be much more limited than assumed by recent evaluation exercises.

Suggested Citation

  • Francesco Lissoni & Fabio Montobbio, 2015. "Guest Authors or Ghost Inventors? Inventorship and Authorship Attribution in Academic Science," Evaluation Review, , vol. 39(1), pages 19-45, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:39:y:2015:i:1:p:19-45
    DOI: 10.1177/0193841X13517234
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0193841X13517234
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0193841X13517234?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Colyvas, Jeannette A., 2007. "From divergent meanings to common practices: The early institutionalization of technology transfer in the life sciences at Stanford University," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 456-476, May.
    2. Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena & Maureen McKelvey & Bulat Sanditov, 2008. "Academic patenting in Europe: new evidence from the KEINS database," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(2), pages 87-102, June.
    3. Rebecca Henderson & Adam B. Jaffe & Manuel Trajtenberg, 1998. "Universities As A Source Of Commercial Technology: A Detailed Analysis Of University Patenting, 1965-1988," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(1), pages 119-127, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Khezr, Peyman & Mohan, Vijay, 2022. "The vexing but persistent problem of authorship misconduct in research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(3).
    2. Sidonia von Ledebur, 2009. "Patent Productivity of German Professors over the Life Cycle," Working Papers on Innovation and Space 2009-03, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julien Pénin, 2009. "On the consequences of university patenting: What can we learn by asking directly to academic inventors?," Working Papers of BETA 2009-04, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    2. Nicolas Carayol & Elodie Carpentier, 2022. "The spread of academic invention: a nationwide case study on French data (1995–2012)," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1395-1421, October.
    3. Magerman, Tom & Looy, Bart Van & Debackere, Koenraad, 2015. "Does involvement in patenting jeopardize one’s academic footprint? An analysis of patent-paper pairs in biotechnology," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(9), pages 1702-1713.
    4. Christian Fisch & Tobias Hassel & Philipp Sandner & Joern Block, 2015. "University patenting: a comparison of 300 leading universities worldwide," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 318-345, April.
    5. Motohashi, Kazuyuki & Muramatsu, Shingo, 2012. "Examining the university industry collaboration policy in Japan: Patent analysis," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 149-162.
    6. Banal-Estañol, Albert & Jofre-Bonet, Mireia & Lawson, Cornelia, 2015. "The double-edged sword of industry collaboration: Evidence from engineering academics in the UK," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1160-1175.
    7. María Jesús Rodríguez-Gulías & David Rodeiro-Pazos & Sara Fernández-López & Christian Corsi & Antonio Prencipe, 2018. "The role of venture capitalist to enhance the growth of Spanish and Italian university spin-offs," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 1111-1130, December.
    8. Martin Carree & Antonio Malva & Enrico Santarelli, 2014. "The contribution of universities to growth: empirical evidence for Italy," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 39(3), pages 393-414, June.
    9. Lissoni, Francesco & Montobbio, Fabio & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2013. "Inventorship and authorship as attribution rights: An enquiry into the economics of scientific credit," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 49-69.
    10. Francesco Lissoni, 2013. "Intellectual property and university–industry technology transfer," Chapters, in: Faïz Gallouj & Luis Rubalcaba & Paul Windrum (ed.), Public–Private Innovation Networks in Services, chapter 7, pages 164-194, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Acosta, Manuel & Coronado, Daniel & Martínez, M. Ángeles, 2012. "Spatial differences in the quality of university patenting: Do regions matter?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 692-703.
    12. Sterzi, Valerio, 2011. "Academic patent value and knowledge transfer in the UK. Does patent ownership matter?," MPRA Paper 34955, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Gallardo, R. Karina & McCluskey, Jill J. & Rickard, Bradley J., 2020. "Commercialization of a demand-enhancing innovation: The release of a new apple variety by a public university," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 88-100.
    14. Sterzi, Valerio, 2013. "Patent quality and ownership: An analysis of UK faculty patenting," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(2), pages 564-576.
    15. Olof Ejermo & John Källström, 2016. "What is the causal effect of R&D on patenting activity in a “professor’s privilege” country? Evidence from Sweden," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 677-694, October.
    16. Cornelia Lawson, 2013. "Academic patenting: the importance of industry support," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(4), pages 509-535, August.
    17. Manuel Acosta & Daniel Coronado & M. Ángeles Martínez, 2018. "Does technological diversification spur university patenting?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 96-119, February.
    18. Antonio Della Malva & Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena, 2013. "Institutional change and academic patenting: French universities and the Innovation Act of 1999," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 211-239, January.
    19. repec:wip:wpaper:4 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Paola Giuri & Federico Munari & Martina Pasquini, 2013. "What Determines University Patent Commercialization? Empirical Evidence on the Role of IPR Ownership," Industry and Innovation, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(5), pages 488-502, July.
    21. Patrick S. W. Fong & Xuhua Chang & Qiang Chen, 2018. "Faculty patent assignment in the Chinese mainland: evidence from the top 35 patent application universities," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 69-95, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:evarev:v:39:y:2015:i:1:p:19-45. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.