Authorship and e‐Science: Balancing Epistemological Trust and Skepticism in the Digital Environment
Authorship and e‐Science: Balancing Epistemological Trust and Skepticism in the Digital Environment
复制标题
作者身份和电子科学：在数字环境中平衡认识论信任和怀疑论
DOI：
10.1080/02691720902741381
复制
发表时间：
2009
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
J. Pila
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Pila
在本文中，我考虑了作者身份在平衡电子科学认识论信任和怀疑论方面的作用。根据对英国乳房护理中心医生的诊断实践和加利福尼亚州（专业和业余）园艺作品出版商的把关实践的研究，我认为作者指定惯例在实用主义和道德所要求的认识论信任框架内培养科学严谨性所必需的怀疑主义方面可以发挥重要作用。在此过程中，我对当代学者关于科学作品实际上是确定的假设提出质疑，同时仍然支持将半不确定作者身份作为目标的想法。然后，我通过分析英澳法律对作者归属的限制，以及可能需要不同归属模式的其他相关（作者和公共）利益和权利的复杂性，考虑该观点的理论和实践后果——不是以作者本身为导向，而是以他们的雇主、他们的经理或主管，或一些被认为是相关作品的适当组织机制的（其他）笔名为导向。
In this article I consider the role of authorship in balancing epistemological trust and skepticism in e‐science. Drawing on studies of the diagnostic practices of doctors in British breast care units and the gate‐keeping practices of a Californian publisher of (professional and amateur) horticultural works, I suggest that conventions of authorial designation have an important role to play in nurturing the skepticism essential for scientific rigor within the framework of epistemological trust that pragmatism and morality require. In so doing I question the assumption of contemporary scholars that scientific works are determinate in fact, while nonetheless supporting the idea of semi‐indeterminate authorship as a goal. I then consider the theoretical and practical consequences of that view with an analysis of the Anglo‐Australian legal constraints on attributions of authorship, and the complex of other relevant (authorial and public) interests and rights that may require different models of attribution—oriented not around authors themselves, but rather their employer, their manager or supervisor, or some (other) pseudonym deemed to be an appropriate organizing mechanism for the works in question.