“Editorial Letter”Managing Authorship Conflicts: A Guide for Researchers
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».