English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Teamwork is an essential component of science. It affords the exchange of ideas and the execution of research that can entail high levels of complexity and scope. Collaborative science also leads to higher-impact publications relative to single-authored research projects (1). Published articles are a key product of scientific work, bearing considerable impact on researchersu0027 academic stances and scientific reputations (2). As such, determination of the relative contribution of each coauthor to the collaborative work is of much significance, and is often reflected in the order of the authorship byline or in comments describing the differential contribution of each of the coauthors to the article (3).Authors often have an outsized estimate of their contributions to a given paper. Image credit: Dave Cutler (artist).Although the scientific community is aware of the challenges associated with accrediting relative contribution in multiauthored papers (4) and scientific journals have developed guidelines to promote more responsible authorship allocation (5⇓–7), almost any researcher who has published a coauthored article is well-aware of the emotional and political undercurrents associated with sorting out the relative contribution to a publication. While previous work has concentrated on elucidating the problems associated with credit allocation (8⇓–10) and on developing quantitative tools to determine degree of contribution (4, 11), scholars have not studied authorsu0027 subjective evaluations of their own and their coauthorsu0027 contributions to coauthored publications. Biased perception of the magnitude of one’s own relative to others’ contribution to scientific work can set the stage for dissatisfaction, disputes, and setbacks to collaborative work.Our research has found that, regardless of an author’s placement in the order of article authorship, most authors possess deep-rooted biases regarding how much they’ve actually contributed to a collaborative work. Psychological research has delineated the existence of self-serving biases in … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: herz.noa{at}gmail.com. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1

Authors overestimate their contribution to scientific work, demonstrating a strong bias