Bibliographic record
Abstract
“I’m the head of the research group and therefore am the first author on all papers from this group. It’s the way it was done when I was a student and it’s the way that it’s always been done. It’s just common knowledge that the senior researcher in the group gets top billing.” How would you handle this situation if your senior colleague or Research Higher Degree (RHD) supervisor held this view regarding authorship of a manuscript relating to ‘your’ research? You have several options: (1) challenge the status quo and potentially damage any future chance you have for promotion/tenure/quality supervision; (2) walk away and accept the decision; or (3) accept the decision for now, and reconvene once you obtain more information regarding authorship guidelines. For researchers and students faced with this dilemma, option 3 would be the most desirable for resolving the problem, but for many, is not considered viable. Research on authorship guidelines inevitably leads to the ‘Vancouver Protocol’. The ‘Vancouver Protocol’ was developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and establishes a set of authorship guidelines for manuscripts submitted to many biomedical journals. These guidelines have been adopted in policies written by governments (e.g., Revision of the Joint NHMRC/AVCC Statement and Guidelines on Research Practice (National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities Australia, 2007)), universities (e.g., University of Oxford, 2004), and associations (e.g., American Psychological Association, 1992) as minimum requirements for authorship determination. Despite the existence of these policies, which clearly state minimum authorship requirements, issues like the one illustrated above still exist. Junior researchers and students who experience problems may perpetuate the cycle of unethical authorship practices as they progress through their careers, believing that these methods for assigning authorship are acceptable. The end result for many researchers and students who encounter unethical practices may be unwillingness to collaborate or publish in the future, increased time to RHD completion, or even withdrawal from their postgraduate degrees (Morris, 2008). This paper will explore and challenge the social norms of authorship assignment and suggest ways institutions can change authorship practices in their organisation so they are consistent with the institution's authorship and research ethics policies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.411 | 0.557 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".