共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 203 毫秒
1.
近年来,科研合作的不当署名问题持续发生。设立作者贡献声明制度,使期刊应对不当署名行为更加主动,从源头阻断不当署名乱象。借助作者贡献声明可以识别论文合著中,具有作者资格未署名、不具有作者资格而署名的不当行为;定性判断署名排序与作者对论文的实际贡献是否相符,为署名顺序提供参考,为期刊规范作者署名、防范不当署名行为提供有效依据和帮助。 相似文献
2.
国内外期刊并列第一作者论文分析与建议 总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0
对国内外3个期刊数据库中的并列第一作者论文从学科分布、年代分布和期刊分布等方面进行统计分析。发现并列第一作者是国外期刊比较常见的一种署名方式,尤其是在高影响力期刊和某些科研领域。与国外相比,我国期刊中这类论文较少,且标注方式比较混乱。认为应鼓励科研人员进行科研合作,并以并列第一作者署名方式发表论文。还提出了防范不端署名的措施。 相似文献
3.
4.
关于学术论文第一作者的署名问题 总被引：10，自引：2，他引：8
指出当前学术论文第一作者署名存在的问题。阐述第一作者的概念、权利和义务。第一作者不仅应该是课题主要观点的拥有者，而且除特殊情况外还必须是科研课题的具体操作者和文章的主要执笔者。论述了研究生作为第一作者的科学性和可行性。认为：学术论文要科学署名，应规范第一作者的概念，并将其纳入稿约，明确其权利义务，制定有关奖惩条例；为表示研究生导师的重要作用，按国际惯例，将导师名字列在作者序列的最后一名。 相似文献
5.
作者署名是科技论文不可缺少的一部分，它应具有简明性、科学性和规范性。“作者署名”是字段和符号的逻辑组合，只有遵循汉语的规律，才能正确描述其结构层次；其内容与社会的发展息息相关；其版式设计应根据美学原理、刊物的整体风格来定，不求千篇一律。 相似文献
6.
[目的/意义]探讨作者贡献声明的格式、内容构成要素及与作者署名次序之间的关系等,旨在发现规律以便更加科学、合理地对论文合作作者进行学术评价及加快图情学期刊作者贡献声明的规范和推广进程。[方法/过程]阐述3种国内外图情学期刊作者贡献声明的格式及内容构成要素,分析和比较不同署名次序的作者与不同类型贡献要素之间的关系。[结果/结论]3种期刊作者贡献声明的格式、要素等有待进一步规范和推广;3种期刊无论从作者层面还是从贡献要素角度分析,都呈现署名靠前的作者其贡献要素参与程度较高的规律,并且第一作者在"提出研究思路"撰写论文"设计研究方案"等核心贡献要素上表现突出。 相似文献
7.
8.
关于科技期刊设立《作者贡献声明》的思考 总被引：1，自引：0，他引：1
针对科研论文中作者署名不规范的现象,通过国外59份医学期刊和国内51份科技期刊作者声明的调查,认为设立《作者贡献声明》对防止学术不端行为的发生及避免署名不当带来的纠纷是一项有效可行的措施。 相似文献
9.
[目的/意义] 以《图书情报工作》为例,探究作者贡献要素与作者署名排序的关系,为构建作者贡献声明规范提供借鉴,为基于文献内容的学术评价提供新方向。[方法/过程] 对《图书情报工作》作者贡献说明版块进行规范化标注,归纳出本学科的29位作者贡献要素,探究不同作者署名位置的作者贡献要素的规律,以及不同作者贡献要素在各个作者署名位置的分布情况。[结果/结论] 经过分析发现,第一作者起决定性作用,第二作者起贯穿性作用,第三和第四作者起辅助性作用,通讯作者起完善性作用;随着作者署名位置的降低,作者贡献越来越分散;越多参与撰写论文,署名排名也可能靠前。在此基础上,提出4点思考：作者贡献要素集中性较强,可制定词表进行规范化控制;贡献要素重要度差异较大,可赋予贡献要素不同权重;根据权重设置不同层次,建立贡献要素体系;挖掘论文中作者的实际贡献,助力学术评价。 相似文献
10.
文章梳理论文作者署名的相关规定，结合编辑工作中遇到的涉嫌不当署名的实际案例，分析不当署名的主要表现形式及其频发原因，并从编辑部实践的角度提出具体对策:通过宣传引导提高对论文署名的认识，完善投稿指南明确论文署名的具体要求，在审稿时仔细甄别不当署名行为，借助作者贡献声明监督署名行为等，以期为减少不当署名的学术不端行为提供参考。 相似文献
11.
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
12.
通过对《第三军医大学学报》近2 年的作者行问卷调查和访谈,收集检索、阅读、引用医学文献等数据并作统计学分析.研究结果显示: 近2 年医科大学学报博士以上研究论文类优质稿件大量流失; 以硕士研究生为绝对主体的作者群带来英文文献引用增多和学报自身的有效阅读量减少; CNKI 与 PubMed 分别为医科大学学报作者群检索中、英文文献的最常用数据库.提出医科大学学报编辑部应重视论文发表的后续服务,编辑应将工作重点放在提升论文检出率等建议. 相似文献
13.
14.
以《医学信息学杂志》和《中华医学图书情报杂志》刊发论文的作者为研究对象,统计分析其作者队伍基本情况。2种期刊论文的主要作者来自医学图书馆和医学信息研究机构,高产作者大多涉及医学图书信息学的多个研究方向,有自己的研究特色;其学术创造期一般持续20年,高产峰期约在10年左右;作者合作程度在逐年增强,但仍处较低水平。研究结果表明,这2种期刊是我国医学信息学界成果发布与学术交流最重要的论文刊发平台。 相似文献
15.
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
16.
Brian S Alper Jason A Hand Susan G Elliott Scott Kinkade Michael J Hauan Daniel K Onion Bernard M Sklar 《Journal of the Medical Library Association》2004,92(4):429-437
OBJECTIVES: Medicine must keep current with the research literature, and keeping current requires continuously updating the clinical knowledge base (i.e., references that provide answers to clinical questions). The authors estimated the volume of medical literature potentially relevant to primary care published in a month and the time required for physicians trained in medical epidemiology to evaluate it for updating a clinical knowledge base. METHODS: We included journals listed in five primary care journal review services (ACP Journal Club, DynaMed, Evidence-Based Practice, Journal Watch, and QuickScan Reviews). Finding little overlap, we added the 2001 "Brandon/Hill Selected List of Print Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library." We counted articles (including letters, editorials, and other commentaries) published in March 2002, using bibliographic software where possible and hand counting when necessary. For journals not published in March 2002, we reviewed the nearest issue. Five primary care physicians independently evaluated fifty randomly selected articles and timed the process. RESULTS: The combined list contained 341 currently active journals with 8,265 articles. Adjusting for publication frequency, we estimate 7,287 articles are published monthly in this set of journals. Physicians trained in epidemiology would take an estimated 627.5 hours per month to evaluate these articles. CONCLUSIONS: To provide practicing clinicians with the best current evidence, more comprehensive and systematic literature surveillance efforts are needed. 相似文献
17.
Ludo Waltman 《Journal of Informetrics》2012,6(4):700-711
There are different ways in which the authors of a scientific publication can determine the order in which their names are listed. Sometimes author names are simply listed alphabetically. In other cases, authorship order is determined based on the contribution authors have made to a publication. Contribution-based authorship can facilitate proper credit assignment, for instance by giving most credits to the first author. In the case of alphabetical authorship, nothing can be inferred about the relative contribution made by the different authors of a publication.In this paper, we present an empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing. Our analysis covers all fields of science. We find that the use of alphabetical authorship is declining over time. In 2011, the authors of less than 4% of all publications intentionally chose to list their names alphabetically. The use of alphabetical authorship is most common in mathematics, economics (including finance), and high energy physics. Also, the use of alphabetical authorship is relatively more common in the case of publications with either a small or a large number of authors. 相似文献
18.
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.
19.