共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
《Behavioral & Social Sciences Librarian》2013,32(4):69-75
The author studied the bibliographies in five years of issues of the four leading psychoanalytic journals to identify those articles and books that could be called classics in psychoanalysis. The determination of what items were classics depended largely upon age (original publications must have taken place in 1939 or before), and frequency (six or more citations were required). The 9 books and 21 articles are listed in order of frequency and examined further by type of authorship, psychoanalytic specialty dealth with, language of publication and availability. It is felt that the results of the study are important for teaching purposes, as a reading guide and for collection development. 相似文献
2.
3.
- As the number of authors on scientific publications increases, ordered lists of author names are proving inadequate for the purposes of attribution and credit.
- A multi‐stakeholder group has produced a contributor role taxonomy for use in scientific publications.
- Identifying specific contributions to published research will lead to appropriate credit, fewer author disputes, and fewer disincentives to collaboration and the sharing of data and code.
4.
Javier Gómez-Ferri Gregorio González-Alcaide Ramón LLopis-Goig 《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(4):100980
Increasing levels of collaboration constitute one of the characteristics of science. However, the knowledge production system is based on a fundamental discordance: on the one hand, it is cooperative in nature, with links articulated through coauthorships, and on the other, the systems for assigning merit and distributing rewards function on an individual scale. This contradiction can give rise to dysfunction and inappropriate practices.This study analyses researchers’ perceptions about the problems associated with authorship in scientific publications. We make use of a coauthorship dissatisfaction index that measures the degree of dissatisfaction with the author order on the byline, ghost authors, and unjustified authorship. There are differences in this regard according to the branch of knowledge, status in the academic hierarchy, and sex. Using a sample of 2344 university researchers, we observed an overall dissatisfaction rate of 12.4%. The highest rates were in the areas of Health Sciences and Social Sciences, in early-stage career academics, and in women. The cognizant authorities should take steps to regulate authorship, tailoring rules to each area of knowledge, with an eye toward reducing discrimination, gender bias, and abuse of authority. 相似文献
5.
共同第一作者和作者同等贡献的描述在国外科技期刊中多见,国内期刊中亦有增多趋势,但因此也会带来滥用作者署名权的问题。针对此类问题,认为应主张在接受投稿时就引入作者关于各自贡献的陈述,这有利于审稿人、编者、读者甄别作者排名的真实性,监督作者署名权的使用,维护科研工作的严谨性。 相似文献
6.
Sara R. Benson 《College & Undergraduate Libraries》2013,20(4):317-327
AbstractThis article delves into a few areas of copyright law that academic authors often overlook: joint author’s rights and the work made for hire doctrine. Scholarly publications produced by university professors often include more than one author. The default copyright laws apply to any such works if there is no specific written agreement to the contrary. Thus, it is important to understand what those default rules are in order to determine whether it is appropriate to deviate from them in an author agreement. Similarly, the work made for hire doctrine would normally apply to make all work produced by professors owned by the university. Luckily, many universities do not wish to own such work and give it back to professors through university statutes and other governing documents. However, it is crucial to understand whether the default rules apply or the university permits professors to negotiate their own author agreements with publishers. Finally, if authors own their own scholarly works, publishers can expect that they will negotiate their rights in the publishing agreements to benefit the terms most favorable to the author. And yet, many faculty members simply sign a standard authorship agreement without asking for concessions on the part of the publisher. Thus, this article empowers professors to exercise their copyright rights to the full extent of the law and to negotiate their author’s agreements to benefit themselves and society as a whole through open access and the use of Creative Commons licenses. 相似文献
7.
《Journal of Government Information》2000,27(4):481-490
The government publications are an unexplored facet of Pakistan librarianship. Ineffective bibliographical control affects their sales and distribution. The publications are sold either directly by the Manager of Publications or through agents. Most libraries catalogue and shelve them as they do books. Some maintain a separate catalogue and a few institutions have a combination of the two approaches. AACR is used. Documents are arranged in alphabetical order by issuing agency, followed by individual titles arranged by year of publication. Special libraries devoted to finance and banking make the most use of government publications. A “Public Documents” course is mandated to be in the curriculum of six library schools in the country, but only the University of Karachi offers this course. 相似文献
8.
Considering the fact that authorship order plays such a significant role as a basis for scientific merit, this paper looks into the practices of authorship order from a research ethical perspective. We conclude that there is a wide variety of practices and no common understanding of what the different authorship positions signify. Authorship guidelines do not provide much help. We recognize that, regardless of what system for valuing authorship positions is used, it will be misleading and unfair in most applications because relative contributions vary in ways that are not captured by fixed value assignments to authorship positions. In theory, assigning percentage figures reflecting the relative contributions of the authors would solve that problem, but we argue that such a scheme is not likely to work in practice. It can also be questioned whether relative, rather than absolute, contributions should be the basis for scientific merit. Contributorship is discussed as an alternative, but is recognized to be insufficient both in communicating absolute and relative contributions, as standardly used. However, there may be a way forward with contributorship, but then, the level of detail needs to increase considerably and its application be standardized. 相似文献
9.
从集体作者的署名方式谈对作者的版权保护 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
调查、比较了国内外53种学术类和技术类期刊论文中集体作者的署名情况及方式。由结果可见，在集体作者的署名方式上，国内期刊突出的是集体，淡化了个人，而国外一流的医学期刊突出的是论文的主要作者，同时兼顾了集体。 相似文献
10.
Having found a business opportunity in exploiting the open access publishing model, predatory journals and publishers have been spamming authors with emails, inviting them to submit articles for publication. Authors may be misled by the names of prestigious authors and editors that predatory journals and publishers use to advertise their publishing services, either by claims that those scientists serve on the editorial boards or by sending invitations in their names. Given the fact that detailed knowledge of a journal is required to make an informed decision of whether the inviting journal is predatory or not, junior scientists are not likely to possess the knowledge or skill to make such decisions. In addition, analysis of the details of new suspicious journals and publishers can be a lengthy process or even a waste of time. Therefore, in this paper, we provide an analysis of a likely scenario that many authors are facing nowadays when they take on the difficult task of studying the details of suspicious journals as possible venues for the publication of their research findings. The analysis takes the form of an analysis of the Kenkyu Publishing Group, which is listed on Jeffrey Beall’s list of “predatory” open access publishers. 相似文献
11.
Sergio SISMONDO 《Learned Publishing》2012,25(1):7-15
The pharmaceutical industry produces an abundance of special‐purpose knowledge, flooding the markets it is most interested in. To gain the largest scientific impact and market value from research, drug company articles placed in medical journals are often written under the names of independent medical researchers. Pharmaceutical company statisticians, reviewers from a diverse array of company departments, medical writers, and publication planners are only rarely acknowledged in journal publications, and key company scientists only sometimes acknowledged. The public knowledge that results from this ghost‐managed research and publication is a marketing tool, providing bases for continuing medical education, buttressing sales pitches, and contributing to medical common sense and further research. In the pharmaceutical industry, knowledge is a resource to be accumulated, shaped, and deployed to best effect. In this paper, I describe this process and discuss ways in which it might be addressed. 相似文献
12.
《Journal of Informetrics》2019,13(3):830-840
This study inserts in the stream of research on the perverse effects that PBRF systems can induce in the subjects evaluated. The authors’ opinion is that more often than not, it is the doubtful scientific basis of the evaluation criteria that leave room for opportunistic behaviors. The work examines the 2004–2010 Italian national research assessment (VQR) to test the lack of possible opportunistic behavior by universities in order to limit the penalization of their performance (and funding) due to the presence of scientifically unproductive professors in faculty. In particular, institutions may have favored “gift authorship” practices. The analysis thus focuses on the output of professors who were unproductive in the VQR publication window, but became productive (“new productives”) in the following five years. A number of universities show a higher than average share of publications by new productives that are in co-authorship exclusively with colleagues from the same university. Although this might be thought to reflect opportunistic behavior by universities, the empirical evidence does not support this assumption. 相似文献
13.
Charles C. Hinnant Besiki StviliaAuthor VitaeShuheng WuAuthor Vitae Adam WorrallAuthor VitaeGary BurnettAuthor Vitae Kathleen BurnettAuthor VitaeMichelle M. KazmerAuthor Vitae Paul F. MartyAuthor Vitae 《Library & information science research》2012
In the second half of the 20th century, scientific research in physics, chemistry, and engineering began to focus on the use of large government-funded laboratories. This shift toward so-called big science also brought about a concomitant change in scientific work itself, with a sustained trend toward the use of highly specialized scientific teams, elevating the role of team characteristics on scientific outputs. The actual impact of scientific knowledge is commonly measured by how often peer-reviewed publications are, in turn, cited by other researchers. Therefore, how characteristics such as author team seniority, affiliation diversity, and size affect the overall impact of team publications was examined. Citation information and author demographics were reviewed for 123 articles published in Physical Review Letters from 2004 to 2006 and written by 476 scientists who used the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory's facilities. Correlation analysis indicated that author teams that were more multi-institutional and had homogeneous seniority tended to have more senior scientists. In addition, the analysis suggests that more mixed seniority author teams were likely to be less institutionally dispersed. Quantile regression was used to examine the relationships between author-team characteristics and publication impact. The analysis indicated that both weighted average seniority and average seniority had a negative relationship with the number of citations the publication received. Furthermore, the analysis also showed a positive relationship between first-author seniority and the number of citations, and a negative relationship between the number of authors and the number of citations. 相似文献
14.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):618-627
Equalizing bias (EqB) is a systematic inaccuracy which arises when authorship credit is divided equally among coauthors who have not contributed equally. As the number of coauthors increases, the diminishing amount of credit allocated to each additional coauthor is increasingly composed of equalizing bias such that when the total number of coauthors exceeds 12, the credit score of most coauthors is composed mostly of EqB. In general, EqB reverses the byline hierarchy and skews bibliometric assessments by underestimating the contribution of primary authors, i.e. those adversely affected by negative EqB, and overestimating the contribution of secondary authors, those benefitting from positive EqB. The positive and negative effects of EqB are balanced and sum to zero, but are not symmetrical. The lack of symmetry exacerbates the relative effects of EqB, and explains why primary authors are increasingly outnumbered by secondary authors as the number of coauthors increases. Specifically, for a paper with 50 coauthors, the benefit of positive EqB goes to 39 secondary authors while the burden of negative EqB befalls 11 primary authors. Relative to harmonic estimates of their actual contribution, the EqB of the 50 coauthors ranged from <−90% to >350%. Senior authorship, when it occurs, is conventionally indicated by a corresponding last author and recognized as being on a par with a first author. If senior authorship is not recognized, then the credit lost by an unrecognized senior author is distributed among the other coauthors as part of their EqB. The powerful distortional effect of EqB is compounded in bibliometric indices and performance rankings derived from biased equal credit. Equalizing bias must therefore be corrected at the source by ensuring accurate accreditation of all coauthors prior to the calculation of aggregate publication metrics. 相似文献
15.
为了降低科技期刊彩色图版的制作印刷成本,调动广大作者多发彩图的积极性以提高刊物的出版质量,利用折叠法对10印张20印刷面上的页码进行了统计,对照所统计的各印刷面上的页码分布,采用本文提出的组版方法——合并法和移动法对有关文献中的双印刷面彩色图版例子进行了重新组版分析。结果显示,合理地将彩色图版安排调整到同一印刷面,减少印刷面的版数,是降低科技期刊彩色图版出版成本的有效方法。 相似文献
16.
Key points
- A clear set of rules regarding authorship responsibilities in academic publications is much needed.
- The leading research integrity guidelines on scientific authorship, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations, are unclear about authorship responsibilities in case of misconduct.
- The source of the problem is the fourth authorship criterion – it should be revised.
17.
《Journal of Informetrics》2014,8(3):683-692
This paper explores a possible approach to a research evaluation, by calculating the renown of authors of scientific papers. The evaluation is based on the citation analysis and its results should be close to a human viewpoint. The PageRank algorithm and its modifications were used for the evaluation of various types of citation networks. Our main research question was whether better evaluation results were based directly on an author network or on a publication network. Other issues concerned, for example, the determination of weights in the author network and the distribution of publication scores among their authors. The citation networks were extracted from the computer science domain in the ISI Web of Science database. The influence of self-citations was also explored. To find the best network for a research evaluation, the outputs of PageRank were compared with lists of prestigious awards in computer science such as the Turing and Codd award, ISI Highly Cited and ACM Fellows. Our experiments proved that the best ranking of authors was obtained by using a publication citation network from which self-citations were eliminated, and by distributing the same proportional parts of the publications’ values to their authors. The ranking can be used as a criterion for the financial support of research teams, for identifying leaders of such teams, etc. 相似文献
18.
Dillip K. Swain 《International Information and Library Review》2013,45(3-4):113-124
The study intends to examine the publication patterns of International Information and Library Review from 2004 to 2013 and to predict the impact and influence of this established journal in the field of library and information science over the last decade. The study finds that International Information and Library Review has published the majority of papers in single authorship mode followed by in two-authorship mode while, contributions in three authorship and more than three-authorship mode are found less. The degree of collaboration in International Information and Library Review publications is found to be 0.45, indicating less intensity of collaborative trend of research. The study reveals that the University of Pittsburgh of the United States is the top performer with 12 authors followed by University of Wisconsin Milwaukee of the United States (10 authors), Universiteit van Pretoria of South Africa and University of the Punjab Lahore of Pakistan (7 authors each). In regard to geographical distribution of contributions, the United States is represented by contributions from 63 authors followed by India with 61 authors. Interestingly, 22 countries like, Argentina, Bhutan, Brazil, Cuba, and others have contributed one paper each. The study further reveals that Britz, J. J. of South Africa is identified as the most prolific author with a significant contribution of five papers followed by Bagheri, M. of Iran, Megnigbeto, E. of Benin, and Tuamsuk, K. of Thailand (four papers each). Moreover, the 2013 impact factor of International Information and Library Review based on records of Scopus citations is 0.588 and immediacy index is 0.09. 相似文献
19.
The use of lists of references in different areas is growing exponentially. Serving as basis for defining the relationships between authors, publications, and journals, references gave an impetus to the development of a set of indicators and indices and thus had a large impact on the development of bibliometrics and scientometrics. In this short paper the use of referencesas an additional module of an anitplagiarism system is suggested. It is shown how direct borrowings from scientific works can be identified by comparing bibliographies in view of their unique structure, which varies from one publication to another. 相似文献
20.
229 Chinese‐language biomedical journals from A Guide to The Core Journals of China were investigated for their guidance on 14 ethical issues. The issues of authorship, duplicate submission, privacy and confidentiality, and integrity of the data were mentioned in more than 50% of the journals. Except for the issues of authorship and protection of animals in research, significant differences were found between Chinese Medical Association Publishing House (CMAPH) journals (n = 67) and non‐CMAPH journals (n = 162) (P < 0.05). 66 of the 229 journals did not update their instructions for authors regularly. 196 journal instructions listed authorship criteria, while the other 33 did not. Clinical trial registration policy was required by 26 (11.3%) journals, among which the CONSORT statement for randomized trials was required by 23, and only one journal guided the authors to work in line with the EQUATOR Network. The study concludes that the situation of publishing ethics in the instructions for authors of Chinese biomedical journals is not favorable, and that Chinese biomedical editors should learn more about publishing ethics in order to reduce opportunities for publication problems. 相似文献