Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories
Intellectual contributions meriting authorship: Survey results from the top cited authors across all science categories
复制标题
DOI：
10.1371/journal.pone.0198117
复制
发表时间：
2019-01-16
期刊：
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Boffito, Daria C.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Patience, Gregory S.;Galli, Federico;Boffito, Daria C.
作者是学术生涯的货币，研究人员发表的论文数量表明了创造力，生产力和影响力。为了阻止强制性的作者身份做法和夸大的出版记录，期刊要求作者确认并详细说明他们的智力贡献，但随着作者名单的持续增长，这一策略一直不成功。在这里，我们调查了所有科学类别中近6000位被引用最多的作者，并列出了我们根据美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）作者指南改编的25项研究活动。同一学科、同一经验水平和同一地理区域的个人的反应差异很大。大多数研究人员同意NIH的标准，并授予起草手稿，分析和解释数据以及提出想法的个人作者资格。然而，成千上万的研究人员也重视监督和对手稿的评论，而NIH建议在归属作者时忽略这些活动。除了写作和数据整理之外，人们更看重研究的细节：人文学科的研究人员比纯科学和应用科学的研究人员更看重这些细节;来自远东、中东和北方非洲的人比讲英语的人和北方欧洲人更看重这些活动。在发展国家和国际合作的同时，研究人员必须在分配作者时认识到人们价值观的差异。
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.