MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2969989490 · doi:10.29252/ijn.32.117.1

“Editorial Letter”Managing Authorship Conflicts: A Guide for Researchers

2019· article· en· W2969989490 sur OpenAlexaff
Soodabeh Joolaee

Notice bibliographique

RevueIran Journal of Nursing · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueAcademic integrity and plagiarism
Établissements canadiensProvidence Health CareCentre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésPsychology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Nowadays, the issue of Authorship has increasingly expanded in the academic world and has resulted in a lot of problems for scholars and the editorial board of scientific Journals. Given the increasing number of postgraduate students and subsequent research activities, every day we witness the formal and informal arguments on the ambiguity and unfairness of decisions regarding authors' names and the dissatisfaction of students and professors in this regard. These discontents make it clearer that there is an urgent need for the policies that address the road map for researchers. Knowing about these policies and their practical application can play an effective role in preventing potential misuse and managing common disputes over authorship. Authorship is a proper method of assigning responsibility and giving credit for doing intellectual work to individuals. The credit is given to an individual to collaborate on research and its importance in fostering reputation and support for academic promotion for the author and increasing the strength and credibility of the affiliated organizations. Individuals violate ethical principles in authorship in a variety of ways; sometimes by placing names of people who did not have a role in doing research or played a very small role, and sometimes by removing the names of people who have been involved in a part of the research. Preventing such events is always better than confronting it after the occurrence. Many academic institutions and organizations, such as universities and research institutes, have developed standards for authorship, although they are similar in basic principles, may vary somewhat over time and from one discipline to another. Various motivations may reinforce the temptation to violate these standards and fundamental principles in individuals. For example, young researchers may believe that putting senior faculty names in the list of authors can increase the credibility of the paper and the chance of accepting it for publication, or not placing the names of people who own power, would endanger their job position. Sometimes, investment in expanding job and research opportunities and receiving financial support may encourage researchers to add people's names, conflicting with the authorship standards. The responsibility for deciding to give authorship credit when publishing the results of research activities in journals is to those who have conducted the research. Sometimes there may be disagreements about the authors of the product of an intellectual effect, which usually interfere with the work. Researchers need to be aware of and apply the principles of authorship, which usually referred to in the section of author's guideline in each journal. As well, the documentation of ethical codes in publications should always be considered an acceptable source. One of the important points to prevent possible disagreements is that the authorship criteria are agreed upon by all members of the research team in the first phase of the research. Whenever possible, it is recommended that written records of authorship decisions be maintained by the team leader and, if necessary, revised by the team members according to the role and participation of individuals during the research. Harvard Medical Schoo considers the basic principles of authorship as:

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,008
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,571
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,644

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0080,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,152
Tête enseignante GPT0,437
Écart entre enseignants0,285 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueIran Journal of NursingMême sujetAcademic integrity and plagiarismTravaux en français237 207