Authorship and contribution disclosures.
Authorship and contribution disclosures.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1126/sciadv.1700404
复制
发表时间：
2017-11
期刊：
影响因子：
13.6
通讯作者：
Haeussler C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Sauermann H;Haeussler C
文章的贡献说明告诉了我们什么，而作者顺序没有告诉我们什么？如何改进这些说明？大多数科学研究都是由团队完成的，长期以来，观察者通过解读已发表文章的作者顺序来推断团队成员的个人贡献。为了回应对这种方法越来越多的关注，期刊正在采取要求披露作者个人贡献的政策。然而，目前尚不清楚这些披露是否以及如何改进传统方法。此外，几乎没有证据表明如何编写贡献声明以及读者如何使用它们。我们开始在两项研究中解决这些问题。在概念模型的指导下，研究1检查了超过12,000篇文章的作者顺序和贡献声明之间的关系，以了解各自提供的信息。该分析量化了从作者顺序推断贡献时的错误风险，并显示了这种风险如何随着团队规模和特定类型的作者而增加。同时，分析表明，捐款价值的某些组成部分按作者顺序反映，但没有反映在目前使用的捐款报表中。作为文献计量分析的补充，研究2分析了来自6000多名通讯作者的调查数据，以检查贡献声明是如何编写和使用的。这一分析突出了不同领域之间、资深科学家和初级科学家之间的重要差异，以及关于贡献声明的好处和局限性的强烈分歧观点。在这两项研究的基础上，我们强调了未来研究的重要途径，并考虑了对广泛利益相关者的影响。
What do contribution statements on articles tell us that author order does not—and how can they be improved? Most scientific research is performed by teams, and for a long time, observers have inferred individual team members’ contributions by interpreting author order on published articles. In response to increasing concerns about this approach, journals are adopting policies that require the disclosure of individual authors’ contributions. However, it is not clear whether and how these disclosures improve upon the conventional approach. Moreover, there is little evidence on how contribution statements are written and how they are used by readers. We begin to address these questions in two studies. Guided by a conceptual model, Study 1 examines the relationship between author order and contribution statements on more than 12,000 articles to understand what information is provided by each. This analysis quantifies the risk of error when inferring contributions from author order and shows how this risk increases with team size and for certain types of authors. At the same time, the analysis suggests that some components of the value of contributions are reflected in author order but not in currently used contribution statements. Complementing the bibliometric analysis, Study 2 analyzes survey data from more than 6000 corresponding authors to examine how contribution statements are written and used. This analysis highlights important differences between fields and between senior versus junior scientists, as well as strongly diverging views about the benefits and limitations of contribution statements. On the basis of both studies, we highlight important avenues for future research and consider implications for a broad range of stakeholders.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Rennie, D;Yank, V;Emanuel, L
通讯作者：
Emanuel, L
影响因子：
9.1
作者：
Owen-Smith, J
通讯作者：
Owen-Smith, J
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
ROSS, M;SICOLY, F
通讯作者：
SICOLY, F
影响因子：
3.3
作者：
Laudel, G
通讯作者：
Laudel, G
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Fiore, Stephen M.
通讯作者：
Fiore, Stephen M.