首页> 外文期刊>Science and engineering ethics >Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices
【24h】

Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices

机译:社会科学领域的作者和出版实践:对当前实践的历史反思

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants' protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology and sociology provide active oversight with sanction authority. In education, the association assumes a more limited role: to develop and communicate standards to evoke voluntary compliance. With respect to authorship credit, each association's standards focus on criteria for inclusion as an author, other than on the author's ability to defend and willingness to take responsibility for the entire work. Discussions across a broad range of research disciplines beyond the social sciences would likely be beneficial. Whether improved standards will reduce either misattribution or perceptions of inappropriate attribution of credit within social science disciplines will likely depend on how well authorship issues are addressed in responsible conduct of research education (RCR), in research practice, and in each association's ongoing efforts to influence normative practice by specifying and clarifying best practices.
机译:对作者定义和出版实践的历史回顾,体现在心理学,社会学和教育领域的作者指南和道德守则中,阐明了各个领域在(a)作品原创性方面的合理共识和一致性。提交,(b)数据共享,(c)人类参与者的保护以及(d)利益冲突披露。但是,在这些领域中,专业协会在解决违反研究或出版惯例方面的作用各不相同。心理学和社会学通过制裁权威提供积极的监督。在教育方面,该协会的作用更为有限:制定和传达标准以唤起自愿遵守。关于作者身份,每个协会的标准都侧重于作为作者的包容性标准,而不是作者的抗辩能力和愿意承担全部工作的责任。社会科学以外的广泛研究领域的讨论可能是有益的。改进后的标准是否会减少社会科学学科中的归因失误或对信用不当归因的看法,可能取决于在负责任的研究教育(RCR),研究实践以及每个协会正在进行的影响力研究中作者权问题的解决方式通过指定和阐明最佳实践来规范实践。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

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