Last year, with the help of NAV, Bart Penders reached out to a number of active nutrition scientists and members of the NAV. His research, to empirically study scientific collaboration and more specifically how careers, authorships, local understanding of ‘good science’ and collaborative work shape one another, called for inside perspectives on the matter. Sixteen anonymous nutrition scientists agreed to be interviewed on these sensitive issues. Based upon a detailed analysis of these interviews, Penders concluded that two different processes of creating value out of one’s contributions coexist in nutrition scientific publishing (and by extension in the NAV). These differences are well-known to insiders, yet publication practices obscure them from public view, thereby making outside assessment of cross-sectoral contributions to scientific work very difficult. That difficulty may contribute to (public) distrust in nutrition scientific claims. The work is not yet done, but a first result is available for all to see:
Penders, B. (2017). All for one or one for all? Authorship and the cross sectoral valuation of credit in nutrition science. Accountability in Research (online ahead of print).