An examination of the globalisation of authorship in publishing in 20 leading marketing journals

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the global contribution of academics to marketing literature between 1999 and 2003, based on an examination of the location of academics institution of employment, as reported in published works. The data is used to evaluate the global dispersion of publishing.

Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses the method of content analysis where the authorship of all articles in 20 leading marketing journals between 1999 and 2003 is examined. An empirical examination of performance was undertaken across geographic regions. There was also an examination of whether the quality of journal affected regional performance.

Findings – The research found that there is a significant “bias” of authorship within the 20 journals examined, with the majority of works published by academics at institutions in North America. There is some variation in regional performance based on the type of journal examined.

Research limitations/implications – There was no attempt to empirically examine why differences might exist. The study only focused on a sample of 20 English language journals over five years. These journals have been included in studies that list the leading marketing journal for US and European academics.

Practical implications – The research suggests that there may in fact be regional differences in publishing behaviour. It is unclear if these differences relate to variations in the “objectives” of institutions within each country or other factors, such as the North American publish-or-perish mentality. The research posits that a marketing knowledge may be unnecessarily restricted, if there is a bias against non-North American perspectives.

Originality/value – While there have been other works examining research performance of institutions, there has been limited examination in marketing on the nation in which authors work and none have used a broad cross-section of journals. This work takes a global “snapshot” of national research performance within marketing.

Authorship, authenticity and intellectual property in Australian Aboriginal art

This article analyzes research and legal cases about authorship, authenticity, and intellectual property in Aboriginal art. The concepts of Aboriginality, authenticity, and ownership are used to show the complexities of Aboriginal law, legal copyright, and the moral rights framework. The clan ownership of Dreaming makes Aboriginal artists’ relationship different to other artists’ individual ownership of their work. Research on this topic by members of the Faculty of Business and Law unit of the Centre for Leisure Management Research at Deakin University was undertaken for the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies. This article provides significant contextual analyses of major issues leading to Commonwealth Government inquiries and legislation in Australia during 2006–8.

Challenges in collaborative writing : addressing authorship attribution

Purpose – Increasing pressure to enhance research coupled with a desire for a broadening of
academic input, are prompting greater levels of collaboration. Research collaboration can generate
notable benefits but can also pose a variety of challenges. The purpose of this paper is to explore the
reasons, facilitators, benefits and challenges of academic collaboration. It also provides suggestions to
manage identifiable risks and enhance team dynamics.
Design/methodology/approach – This is a conceptual paper exploring prior literature in relation
to the contentious points of research collaboration, particularly in regard to authorship attribution.
Findings – The authors present two checklists that researchers can utilise to ensure the successful
completion of collaborative projects. The checklists incorporate the main factors required for effective
collaborative work and research, and form a foundation for discussion among team members.
Originality/value – The paper draws upon experiences, observations, academic literature and
protocols, and provides strategies and recommendations to enhance collaboration and authorship
attribution. The two checklists presented in the paper are value-adding for team members.

Authorship and fixation in copyright law : a comparative comment

[The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.]

Trends in co-authorship in the Australian Group of Eight law reviews

This paper examines trends in co-authorship in the Group of Eight (Go8) law reviews over the period 1975 to 2010. Several conclusions emerge. First, co-authorship occurs less in legal scholarship than in other disciplines. Second, co-authorship in Australian legal scholarship is less than in legal scholarship in the United States. Third, in terms of gender differences, males collaborate more than females. Fourth, academics at the leading law schools provide a disproportionate number of co-authored articles in the Go8 law reviews. Fifth, there is a positive correlation between co-authorship and publishing in the top Australian law journals. Between a quarter and a third of those who co-authored three or more articles in the Go8 law reviews were also those who published the most in the top Australian law journals over the period 1990–2010.

Collaborative authorship in film production: Walter Murch and film editing

Filmmaking is frequently cited as the most collaborative of all arts, yet for the most part, mainstream and scholarly literature have received films as the creative voice of just one artist – the director. The reasons for this are many: general ignorance of how films are made; the hijacking of film theory by literary theory, and the continuing popularity of the myth of the Romantic Artist as solitary genius are some of them. The case for collaborative authorship has gained momentum since the 1980s as studies on the production of individual films, actors, production companies and the history of the film industry as a whole have proliferated and drawn attention to the disparities between how films are perceived and how they are actually made. This article analyses collaboration in film production culture through examination of the role of the film editor. Concentrating specifically on the film/sound editor and mixer Walter Murch, it examines his role as a collaborative author in his early work with director Francis Ford Coppola and his later work with English director Anthony Minghella.

Critique and comment: Authorship and fixation in copyright law: A comparative comment

The present comment considers an issue that has received little discussion in the common law world: namely whether fixation and authorship are parts of the same creative act in relation to literary, dramatic and musical works. The importance of the question is that, if authorship does not entail fixation, it should logically be possible for a person independent of the author to reduce the work to material form for copyright purposes. This would significantly expand the range of works protected by copyright and would extend protection to those works which have never been fixed by their authors. The focus of the comment is Australian law, but its discussion is comparative, with particular attention given to UK law.

Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review

Facilitated Communication (FC) is a technique whereby individuals with disabilities and communication impairments allegedly select letters by typing on a keyboard while receiving physical support, emotional encouragement, and other communication supports from facilitators. The validity of FC stands or falls on the question of who is authoring the typed messages--the individual with a disability or the facilitator. The International Society for Augmentative and Alternative Communication (ISAAC) formed an Ad Hoc Committee on FC and charged this committee to synthesize the evidence base related to this question in order to develop a position statement. The purpose of this paper is to report this synthesis of the extant peer-reviewed literature on the question of authorship in FC. A multi-faceted search was conducted including electronic database searches, ancestry searches, and contacting selected authors. The authors considered synopses of systematic reviews, and systematic reviews, which were supplemented with individual studies not included in any prior reviews. Additionally, documents submitted by the membership were screened for inclusion. The evidence was classified into articles that provided (a) quantitative experimental data related to the authorship of messages, (b) quantitative descriptive data on the output generated through FC without testing of authorship, (c) qualitative descriptive data on the output generated via FC without testing of authorship, and (d) anecdotal reports in which writers shared their perspectives on FC. Only documents with quantitative experimental data were analyzed for authorship. Results indicated unequivocal evidence for facilitator control: messages generated through FC are authored by the facilitators rather than the individuals with disabilities. Hence, FC is a technique that has no validity.

Medical and scientific authorship: a conflict between discipline rules and the law

When the results of medical collaborations are to be published, questions of authorship arise. Which members of the research team are to be acknowledged as authors of the paper? In what order are they to be acknowledged? Institutional rules will generally determine the attribution of authorship to members of the research team. However those rules are most unlikely to be consistent with the legal rules governing authorship and its attribution, most of which will apply regardless of a team’s adherence to institutional rules. This article examines the meaning of authorship in the medical community, and in the legal community under the copyright laws. It considers various formulations of the institutional rules governing authorship, as well as editorial practices. Through consideration of a hypothetical scenario, the consequences of the disparity between authorship norms in law and in medicine are elaborated.

Research collaborations and "authorship": differentiating legal from management norms

The question of who should take credit as the authors of collaborative research papers has long been a matter for discussion, especially within scientific institutions. However, that discussion has not sufficiently taken account of the legalities of the situation. Particularly since the passing of moral rights legislation in Australia and elsewhere, institutional norms are in conflict with the legal rules concerning the attribution of authorship. Yet, when researchers take their grievances to the courts, it is the legal rules that will prevail. The present article considers the institutional rules against their legal counterparts and the steps that have been, and might in future be, taken to manage this divergence of norms.

Observations from the refuse-heap: Freud, Michelangelo`s Moses, and psychoanalysis

Sigmund Freud's 1914 essay on Michelangelo's statue of Moses is unique in having been the only one of his works whose authorship he sought to conceal. Although the essay bears no relation to psychoanalytic theory as such Freud characterized the method of inquiry that he employed therein as one that has in point of fact a certain resemblance to the methodology of psychoanalysis, and a number of authors have since insisted on this resemblance even to the point of proclaiming the essay to be paradigmatic of Freudian interpretive methods.

The tangled web internet plagiarism and international students` academic writing

This study explores the notion of plagiarism and the Internet from 11 English as Second Language (ESL) teachers and 186 first-year ESL students at South-Coast University in Melbourne, Australia. Data collection was by a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews, and coded using SPSS and N*Vivo software to ascertain trends in response. The most significant difference in response related to the concept of the Internet as copyrightable space. ESL teachers in this study regarded cyberspace as a limitless environment for ‘cut and paste’ plagiarism in students’ academic writing, whereas ESL students considered the Internet a ‘free zone’ and not governed by legal proprietary rights. These conflicting views, it is suggested, relate to differing notions of authorship and attribution: the Romantic notion protected by legal theory and sanctions versus literary theory and techno-literacy notions of authorship. This research highlights the need to reformulate plagiarism policies in light of global and technological perspectives of authorship and attribution of text.

The first 10 years of accounting history as an international refereed journal : 1996-2005

This article undertakes a content analysis of publications in the first 10 years of the new series of the journal Accounting History. In so doing, it adds to the prior literature examining publishing patterns in the accounting history discipline. The article commences by providing an historical background to the introduction of the new series and the journal's editorial team. This is followed by a content analysis of the journal's research publications. This analysis examines patterns of authorship, the journal's most published authors, institutional and geographical affiliations of authors, author gender and article classifications.