Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices
Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s11948-011-9280-4
复制
发表时间：
2011-06-01
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Monson, Verna
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bebeau, Muriel J.;Monson, Verna
对心理学、社会学和教育领域作者指导和道德准则中所包含的作者身份定义和出版实践的历史回顾，阐明了各领域在 (a) 所提交作品的原创性、(b) 数据共享、(c) 人类参与者保护和 (d) 利益冲突披露方面的合理一致和一致性。然而，专业协会在解决研究或出版实践违规行为方面的作用在这些领域中有所不同。心理学和社会学提供积极的监督和制裁权力。在教育领域，该协会承担的角色更为有限：制定和传达标准以唤起自愿遵守。在作者信用方面，各协会的标准侧重于作为作者的纳入标准，而不是作者的辩护能力和对整个作品承担责任的意愿。社会科学以外的广泛研究学科的讨论可能会是有益的。改进的标准是否会减少社会科学学科内的错误归因或对学分不当归因的看法，可能取决于负责任的研究教育行为（RCR）、研究实践以及每个协会通过指定和澄清最佳实践影响规范实践的持续努力如何解决作者身份问题。
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.