首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>PLoS Clinical Trials >Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories
【2h】

Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories

机译:享有杰出贡献的智力贡献:所有科学类别中被引用最多的作者的调查结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Authorship is the currency of an academic career for which the number of papers researchers publish demonstrates creativity, productivity, and impact. To discourage coercive authorship practices and inflated publication records, journals require authors to affirm and detail their intellectual contributions but this strategy has been unsuccessful as authorship lists continue to grow. Here, we surveyed close to 6000 of the top cited authors in all science categories with a list of 25 research activities that we adapted from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) authorship guidelines. Responses varied widely from individuals in the same discipline, same level of experience, and same geographic region. Most researchers agreed with the NIH criteria and grant authorship to individuals who draft the manuscript, analyze and interpret data, and propose ideas. However, thousands of the researchers also value supervision and contributing comments to the manuscript, whereas the NIH recommends discounting these activities when attributing authorship. People value the minutiae of research beyond writing and data reduction: researchers in the humanities value it less than those in pure and applied sciences; individuals from Far East Asia and Middle East and Northern Africa value these activities more than anglophones and northern Europeans. While developing national and international collaborations, researchers must recognize differences in peoples values while assigning authorship.
机译:作者身份是学术生涯的货币,研究人员发表的论文数量证明了创造力,生产力和影响力。为了阻止强制性的作者行为和虚假的出版物记录,期刊要求作者确认并详细说明他们的学术贡献,但是随着作者人数的不断增加,这种策略并不成功。在这里,我们对所有科学类别中近6000名被引用最多的作者进行了调查,并列出了我们根据美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)作者指南修改的25项研究活动的清单。对于来自同一学科,相同经验水平和相同地理区域的个人,其回答差异很大。大多数研究人员都同意NIH的标准,并授权作者起草稿件,分析和解释数据以及提出想法的个人。但是,成千上万的研究人员也非常重视监督和对手稿发表评论,而NIH建议在归属作者时轻视这些活动。人们重视研究的精髓,而不仅仅是撰写和减少数据:人文学科的研究人员对它的重视程度低于纯粹科学和应用科学领域的人;来自远东亚洲,中东和北非的人们对这些活动的重视程度超过英语和北欧人。在开展国家和国际合作时,研究人员在分配作者身份时必须认识到人们价值观的差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号