Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective.
Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals...
| Publicado en: | Science & Engineering Ethics Vol. 22; no. 5; pp. 1457 - 1473 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Artículo |
| Publicado: |
Springer Nature
Oct2016
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=hlh&AN=118710078&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: hlh uiTerm: 118710078 longDbName: Humanities International Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: jinfo: jid: 13533452 GNI jtl: Science & Engineering Ethics issn: 13533452 maglogo: N pubinfo: dt: Oct2016 vid: 22 iid: 5 pid: 237 pub: Springer Nature artinfo: ui: 118710078 10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3 ppf: 1457 ppct: 16 formats: fmt: @attributes: type: P size: 458KB tig: atl: Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective. aug: au: Teixeira da Silva, Jaime Dobránszki, Judit affil: Miki-cho Post Office Ikenobe 3011-2 761-0799 Japan Research Institute of Nyíregyháza , University of Debrecen , Nyíregyháza 4400 Hungary su: Scientific literature Publications Authorship Information resources Ethics sug: subj: Scientific literature Publications Authorship Information resources Ethics keyword: Collaboration COPE CSE Elsevier Guest, ghost and gift authorship ICMJE Multi-author Springer Nature Taylor and Francis WAME Wiley-Blackwell ab: Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Article src: R language: English refInfo: copyright: @attributes: flag: Y custom: Science & Engineering Ethics is a copyright of Springer, 2016. All Rights Reserved. item: Science & Engineering Ethics holder: Springer Nature dt: @attributes: year: 2016 holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|