In need of publishing a paper to find a job or grant? Co-authorship without contributing: The rise of an ethical problem
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In need of publishing a paper to find a job or grant?Co-authorship without contributing:The rise of an ethical problemIn recent times the pressure for publishing has led researchers to wanting to appear in the author list without having made a significant conntribution, a practice not included in the Vancouver Agreement that frames who the authors of a paper should be.This situation creates not only an ethical problem but also a problem within the work environment if a researcher refuses to include authors who have not participated in the study, creating unconfortable situations in some institutions.It is well known that some researchers that appear to be very productive, holding a high record of plublished papers, may have entered the ratings without having read a manuscript that later mentions them in the authorship list, thanks to supporting infrastructure or by maintaining networks.This network somehow strengthens the group leader, or leader of the line and also some "emerging researchers" so they can apply for more grants and increase their chances of finding better jobs or more grants for their students.Some professors even take advantage of their students' novel ideas to generate a grant and thus maintain the vanguard, without even including the latter in the benefits of the grant or the paper that is generated.Neither European, North American nor Chilean universities are exempt from these practices.In Chile, institutions such as Universidad de Chile, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, and Universidad Austral de Chile have had a series of problems with postgraduate students denouncing their professors for using their theses, or part of these,to generate papers without including them in the authorship list.This unethical practice has some deep roots, fueled by the desire of some proffesors to remain in the "elite" of research.The solution to this problem is complex since grants are scarce and competition is tough.In some research centers and universities this subject is not even spoken of, because this practice is highly institutionalised, therefore discusing the ethics of this matter or the Vancouver Agreement is not an option.The only way to eradicate these practices would be to generate debate and denounce them, and to avoid "collaborating" with this type of researchers.Unfortunately, science is not estranged from what happens in the world, nor within non-academic institutions, where this type of action is common and very recurrent.Science should be a beacon for scociety, a place to look toward and be guided by.
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 | 0.326 | 0.689 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.049 | 0.042 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.018 |
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".