Table 1.
Overview of the population and sample population.
Table 2.
Participants’ distribution across gender, age and academic field—Per country and total.
Table 3.
Survey questions and answer options probing the first two research questions.
Table 4.
Descriptions of the contributions of different collaborators in the authorship scenarios.
Table 5.
Share of PhD students who believed they had granted a person in power a guest authorship.
Table 6.
Results from unadjusted and adjusted logistic regression focusing on factors explaining whether PhD students had allowed someone in power to become co-authors of papers even though they had not made a significant contribution to them (once or several times during the past year) (n = 1,096)—Odds ratio (OR).
Table 7.
Share of PhD students that believe they have granted at least one guest authorship to a person in power per faculty, country, and type of data used (n = 1,096).
Table 8.
For participants who had granted a guest authorship to a person in power at least once: “Which of the following best describes your reason for doing so?”.
Table 9.
Demographic and study-specific variables predictors of reason for granting guest authorship (n = 1,096).
Table 10.
Share of PhD students (predicted probabilities) who granted a guest authorship because “The person in power told me to” (n = 1,096).
Table 11.
Share of PhD students (predicted probabilities) that granted a guest authorship because “I wanted to maintain a good relationship with the person” (n = 1096).
Table 12.
Share of PhD students (predicted probabilities) who granted a guest authorship because “Everyone else in my field does it” (n = 1,096).
Table 13.
Share of PhD students (predicted probabilities) who granted a guest authorship because “I believed they deserved it” (n = 1,096).
Table 14.
Participants’ beliefs about whether it would be acceptable to include each of the four collaborators as co-authors of a publication they had contributed to in varying degree (details in Section 2.4.2).
Shares are reported as column percentages (n = 1,336).
Table 15.
Item response probabilities for the four latent classes (n = 1,336).
Fig 1.
The distribution of the four views on authorship within the different faculties (shares are based on predicted probabilities).
Fig 2.
Distribution of the four views on authorship across datatypes (shares based on predicted probabilities).
Fig 3.
Distribution of authorship views across countries (shares calculated using the atmeans margins command to reflect the same average student across countries).
Fig 4.
Distribution of authorship views across gender identification (shares based on predicted probabilities).
Table 16.
Share granting a guest authorship to a person in power at least once across the four classes. (n = 1,096).