From MFKP_wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Selection: with tag authorship [25 articles] 


Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 115, No. 11. (13 February 2018), pp. 2557-2560,


In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) ( methodology for attributing ...


Transparent author credit

Science, Vol. 359, No. 6379. (01 March 2018), pp. 961-961,


Authorship on papers is one of the major currencies of the scientific enterprise. Nevertheless, the contributions of different authors to a given paper have remained relatively opaque. Contributions are generally inferred from the order of authors, and implications of position on the authorship list vary between different investigators and scientific fields. A year ago, a group of editors and publishers across a wide range of disciplines met to discuss how to provide a more systemic solution to make author contributions more ...


Trusting others to ‘do the math’

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 4. (2 October 2015), pp. 376-392,


Researchers effectively trust the work of others anytime they use software tools or custom software. In this article I explore this notion of trusting others, using Digital Humanities as a focus, and drawing on my own experience. Software is inherently flawed and limited, so when its use in scholarship demands better practices and terminology, to review research software and describe development processes. It is also important to make research software engineers and their work more visible, both for the purposes of ...


Software and scholarship

Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, Vol. 40, No. 4. (2 October 2015), pp. 342-348,


[excerpt] The thematic focus of this issue is to examine what happens where software and scholarship meet, with particular reference to digital work in the humanities. Despite the some seven decades of its existence, Digital Humanities continues to struggle with the implications, in the academic ecosystem, of its position between engineering and art. [...] [\n] [...] [\n] I will end with my own reflection on this topic of evaluation. Peer review of scholarly works of software continues to pose a particularly vexed challenge ...


Ethics among scholars in academic publishing

In 2012 Proceedings of the Information Systems Educators Conference (2012), 1948


This paper offers a survey of the contemporary and common-place ethical breaches concerning authorship, research, and publishing in today’s scholarly production, as juxtaposed with some of the predominant standards and guidelines that have been developed to direct academic publishing practices. While the paper may suggest the need for an updated and comprehensive set of guidelines for multiple discipline areas, the purpose here is to prepare the theoretical framework for a future computing discipline-specific study of ethical authorship and related concepts in ...


Programmers, professors, and parasites: credit and co-authorship in computer science

Science and Engineering Ethics In Science and Engineering Ethics, Vol. 15, No. 4. (2009), pp. 467-489,


This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be ...


Scientists behaving badly

Nature, Vol. 435, No. 7043. (9 June 2005), pp. 737-738,


To protect the integrity of science, we must look beyond falsification, fabrication and plagiarism, to a wider range of questionable research practices, argue Brian C. Martinson, Melissa S. Anderson and Raymond de Vries. [\n] Serious misbehaviour in research is important for many reasons, not least because it damages the reputation of, and undermines public support for, science. Historically, professionals and the public have focused on headline-grabbing cases of scientific misconduct, but we believe that researchers can no longer afford to ignore ...


Who is accountable?

Nature, Vol. 450, No. 7166. (31 October 2007), pp. 1-1,


How the responsibilities of co-authors for a scientific paper's integrity could be made more explicit. ...


Authorship matters

Nature Materials, Vol. 7, No. 2. (01 February 2008), pp. 91-91,


Individual contributions should be carefully evaluated when compiling the author list of a scientific paper. ...


Hyperauthorship: a postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 52, No. 7. (2001), pp. 558-569,


Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed ...


Credit where credit is due? Regulation, research integrity and the attribution of authorship in the health sciences

Social Science & Medicine, Vol. 70, No. 9. (May 2010), pp. 1458-1465,


Despite attempts at clear direction in international, national and journal guidelines, attribution of authorship can be a confusing area for both new and established researchers. As journal articles are valuable intellectual property, authorship can be hotly contested. Individual authors' responsibilities for the integrity of article content have not been well explored. Semi-structured interviews (n = 17) were conducted with staff, student advocates and doctoral candidates working in health research in two universities in Australia. Stratified sampling ensured participants reflected a range of experience ...


Responsible authorship: why researchers must forgo honorary authorship

Accountability in Research, Vol. 18, No. 2. (9 March 2011), pp. 76-90,


Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship?the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria?has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about honorary authorship. Despite its general ...


Academic authorship: who, why and in what order?

Health Renaissance, Vol. 11, No. 2. (19 June 2013),


We are frequently asked by our colleagues and students for advice on authorship for scientific articles. This short paper outlines some of the issues that we have experienced and the advice we usually provide. This editorial follows on from our work on submitting a paper1 and also on writing an academic paper for publication.2 We should like to start by noting that, in our view, there exist two separate, but related issues: (a) authorship and (b) order of authors. The issue of authorship centres on the notion of who can be ...


Study contract concerning moral rights in the context of the exploitation of works through digital technology - Final report

No. ETD/99/B5-3000/E°28. (200)


[Excerpt] According to the terms of Annexes III & IV of the contract n° ETD/99/B5-3000/E/28, the following parts of the study have been drafted : [::] analysis of the disparities in the legislation and case law of the several Member States concerning the protection of moral rights, in particular with respect to the specific characteristics of the digital exploitation of works [::] establishment of comparison tables describing the Member States’ applicable provisions in distinguishing between the several categories of works and the type of exploitation [::] analysis of ...


Author sequence and credit for contributions in multiauthored publications

PLoS Biology, Vol. 5, No. 1. (16 January 2007), e18,


A transparent, simple, and straightforward approach that is free from any arbitrary rank valuation is required to estimate the credit associated with the sequence of authors' names on multiauthored papers. [Excerpt] The increasing tendency across scientific disciplines to write multiauthored papers [1,2] makes the issue of the sequence of contributors' names a major topic both in terms of reflecting actual contributions and in a posteriori assessments by evaluation committees. Traditionally, the first author contributes most and also receives most of the credit, ...


Collective credit allocation in science.

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 111, No. 34. (26 August 2014), pp. 12325-12330,


[Significance] The increasing dominance of multiauthor papers is straining the credit system of science: although for single-author papers, the credit is obvious and undivided, for multiauthor papers, credit assignment varies from discipline to discipline. Consequently, each research field runs its own informal credit allocation system, which is hard to decode for outsiders. Here we develop a discipline-independent algorithm to decipher the collective credit allocation process within science, capturing each coauthor’s perceived contribution to a publication. The proposed method provides scientists and policy-makers ...


What it takes

Science, Vol. 344, No. 6190. (20 June 2014), pp. 1422-1422,


[Excerpt] Not long ago, Science Careers posted a widget—you can find it at—that lets early-career scientists calculate the probability that they'll someday become principal investigators (PIs), on the basis of a few standard publication metrics. [...] The Science Careers widget is less accurate than the full-bore model, but it has the virtue of focusing attention on a handful of the most important parameters. [...] 1. Be male. The widget's probability plot displays two lines: red for women and blue for ...


Publishing: credit where credit is due

Nature, Vol. 508, No. 7496. (16 April 2014), pp. 312-313,


[Excerpt] Research today is rarely a one-person job. Original research papers with a single author are — particularly in the life sciences — a vanishing breed. Partly, the inflation of author numbers on papers has been driven by national research-assessment exercises. Partly, it is the emergence of big and collaborative science, assisted by technology, that is changing the research landscape. [\n] What we cannot tell easily by reading a paper is who did what. That is difficult to decipher by consulting the ...


(INRMM-MiD internal record) List of keywords of the INRMM meta-information database - part 3

(February 2014)
Keywords: apennines   aphid   aphis-pomi   apl   apmv-transmission   approximate-dynamic-programming   apriona-germari   aqua-modis   aquatic-invertebrate-shredders   aradus-cinnamommeus   araucaria-angustifolia   araucaria-araucana   araucaria-bidwillii   araucaria-heterophylla   araucaria-montana   araucaria-spp   arboriculture   arbutus-canariensis   arbutus-menziesii   arbutus-spp   arbutus-unedo   arctic-region   arctostaphylos-uva-ursi   ardity   argania-spinosa   argentina   argive-plain   arid-climate   arid-region   aridity   arion-lusitanicus   aristolochia-arborea   armillaria-spp   array-atomic-variables   array-of-agents   array-of-factors   array-of-sectors   array-of-users   array-programming   arsenic   arthropods   artic-region   artic-sea-ice   artificial-intelligence   artificial-neural-network   artificial-neural-networks   artocarpus-altilis   artocarpus-heterophyllus   arvicola-spp   arxiv   asia   aspidosperma-cruentum   aspidosperma-myristicifolium   asplenium-spp   assessment   associated-microorganisms   association-genetics   associations   asteraceae   asynchronous-change   atmosphere   atmospheric-circulation   atriplex-halimus   atriplex-nummularia   atta-cephalotes   auc   australia   austria   austrocedrus-chilensis   authorship   autoecology   automatic-knowledge-generation   automatic-knowledge-mapping   automation   automation-irony   autonomic-computing   autoregressive-model   avicennia-germinans   avifauna   awk   azadirachta-indica   azerbaijan   azolla-spp   bacillus-thuringiensis   back-propagation-networks   bacteria   bacterial-canker   bacterial-diseases   bacterial-wood-degradation   bactris-gasipaes   bactrocera-invadens   bactrocera-oleae   baikiaea-plurijuga   balanites-aegyptiaca   balkan-peninsula   balkan-region   balkans   bangladesh   banksia-grandis   inrmm-list-of-tags  


List of indexed keywords within the transdisciplinary set of domains which relate to the Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management (INRMM). In particular, the list of keywords maps the semantic tags in the INRMM Meta-information Database (INRMM-MiD). [\n] The INRMM-MiD records providing this list are accessible by the special tag: inrmm-list-of-tags ( ). ...


The relationship between acquaintanceship and coauthorship in scientific collaboration networks

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Vol. 62, No. 11. (November 2011), pp. 2121-2132,


This article examines the relationship between acquaintanceship and coauthorship patterns in a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, geographically distributed research center. Two social networks are constructed and compared: a network of coauthorship, representing how researchers write articles with one another, and a network of acquaintanceship, representing how those researchers know each other on a personal level, based on their responses to an online survey. Statistical analyses of the topology and community structure of these networks point to the importance of small-scale, local, personal networks ...


'Conferring authorship': Biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research

PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 9. (30 September 2013), pp. e76686-e76686,


Multi-collaborator research is increasingly becoming the norm in the field of biomedicine. With this trend comes the imperative to award recognition to all those who contribute to a study; however, there is a gap in the current âgold standardâ in authorship guidelines with regards to the efforts of those who provide high quality biosamples and data, yet do not play a role in the intellectual development of the final publication. We carried out interviews with 36 individuals working in, or with ...


Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups

Science, Vol. 330, No. 6004. (29 September 2010), pp. 686-688,


Psychologists have repeatedly shown that a single statistical factor—often called “general intelligence”—emerges from the correlations among people’s performance on a wide variety of cognitive tasks. But no one has systematically examined whether a similar kind of “collective intelligence” exists for groups of people. In two studies with 699 people, working in groups of two to five, we find converging evidence of a general collective intelligence factor that explains a group’s performance on a wide variety of tasks. This “c factor” is ...


The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge

Science, Vol. 316, No. 5827. (18 May 2007), pp. 1036-1039,


We have used 19.9 million papers over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents to demonstrate that teams increasingly dominate solo authors in the production of knowledge. Research is increasingly done in teams across nearly all fields. Teams typically produce more frequently cited research than individuals do, and this advantage has been increasing over time. Teams now also produce the exceptionally high-impact research, even where that distinction was once the domain of solo authors. These results are detailed for sciences and engineering, ...


It is time for full disclosure of author contributions

Nature, Vol. 489, No. 7417. (26 September 2012), pp. 475-475,
Keywords: authorship   science-ethics  


Online databases could increase fairness and transparency by fully documenting the role of each contributor to a paper, says Sebastian Frische. ...


Authorship: who's on first?

Nature, Vol. 489, No. 7417. (26 September 2012), pp. 591-593,
Keywords: authorship   science-ethics  


When scientists collaborate on an experiment and a paper, it can be hard to decide who gets the credit and how much. ...

This page of the database may be cited as:
Integrated Natural Resources Modelling and Management - Meta-information Database.

Publication metadata

Bibtex, RIS, RSS/XML feed, Json, Dublin Core

Meta-information Database (INRMM-MiD).
This database integrates a dedicated meta-information database in CiteULike (the CiteULike INRMM Group) with the meta-information available in Google Scholar, CrossRef and DataCite. The Altmetric database with Article-Level Metrics is also harvested. Part of the provided semantic content (machine-readable) is made even human-readable thanks to the DCMI Dublin Core viewer. Digital preservation of the meta-information indexed within the INRMM-MiD publication records is implemented thanks to the Internet Archive.
The library of INRMM related pubblications may be quickly accessed with the following links.
Search within the whole INRMM meta-information database:
Search only within the INRMM-MiD publication records:
Full-text and abstracts of the publications indexed by the INRMM meta-information database are copyrighted by the respective publishers/authors. They are subject to all applicable copyright protection. The conditions of use of each indexed publication is defined by its copyright owner. Please, be aware that the indexed meta-information entirely relies on voluntary work and constitutes a quite incomplete and not homogeneous work-in-progress.
INRMM-MiD was experimentally established by the Maieutike Research Initiative in 2008 and then improved with the help of several volunteers (with a major technical upgrade in 2011). This new integrated interface is operational since 2014.