Journal articles: 'Authorship'

1

Green, M. S. "Authorship! Authorship!" JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 271, no. 24 (June 22, 1994): 1904b—1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.271.24.1904b.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

2

Kasper, C. K. "Authorship! Authorship!" JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 271, no. 24 (June 22, 1994): 1904c—1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.271.24.1904c.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

3

Rennie, Drummond. "Authorship! Authorship!" JAMA 271, no. 6 (February 9, 1994): 469. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510300075043.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

4

Green, Manfred S. "Authorship! Authorship!" JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 271, no. 24 (June 22, 1994): 1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510480028013.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

5

Kasper, Carol K. "Authorship! Authorship!" JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 271, no. 24 (June 22, 1994): 1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510480028014.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

6

Ferreira, Manuel Portugal, Christian Daniel Falaster, Cláudia Sofia Frias Pinto, and Renata Canela. "Publishing in co-authorship: A comparison of the motivations between more and less prolific Management scholars in Brazil." Administração: Ensino e Pesquisa 21, no. 2 (May 1, 2020): 56–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.13058/raep.2020.v21n2.1576.

Full text

Abstract:

In this study, we investigate what more and less prolific scholars – that publish more or less scientific articles – search for in their co-authorship ties. Specifically, we seek to understand if and how there are differences in the motivations presiding to co-authorship between more and less prolific researchers. Research on co-authorship is of interest to the academia, since the majority of the articles are published in co-authorship and co-authorships may have an important impact in the scholars’ career. We have collected survey data with 171 Brazilian management faculty, about their motivations, pressures, and choices for co-authorship. We identify significant differences on the perceived pressures to publish, source of pressure, motivations to work in co-authorship and the contributions warranting co-authorship across more and less prolific researchers. We contribute to the debate on the development of scholars and the formation of co-authorship ties, suggesting that co-authorship may be strategically managed and evolving along the professional path of the researchers, and leaving the possibility that scholars’ networks of co-authorship evolve strategically as they seek different goals.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

7

HICK, DARREN HUDSON. "Authorship, Co-Authorship, and Multiple Authorship." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 72, no. 2 (April 23, 2014): 147–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12075.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

8

Bhagat, Vijay. "Women Authorship of Scholarly Publications in STEMM: Authorship Puzzle." Feminist Research 2, no. 2 (June 16, 2019): 66–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.21523/gcj2.18020204.

Full text

Abstract:

The continued underrepresentation of women in scholarly activities slows down the scientific progress of any country. Several studies have analyzed the women representation in authorship of scholarly publications in Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics and Medicine (STEMM). Women account only 30% of overall authorship of scholarly articles. Prestigious authorships like first-, last- and corresponding authors also show significant underrepresentation of women. Women as first authors are significantly increasing since last decades; however, growth of last authors is not significant and share of corresponding authors not changed. Women show low overall impact of scholarly publications due to lower productivity but not for quality of publication. This gender authorship puzzle can be solved by adopting gender responsive planning and management. Therefore, systematic efforts to understand the gender disparities in scholarly publications, authorship citations and collaborations require for achieving significant positive change in the share of women in academic authorship, impact and career. The field is new, active, attractive and interesting area of research to achieve gender equality in scientific research and publications for social welfare.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

9

Rennie, Drummond. "Authorship! Authorship!-Reply." JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association 271, no. 24 (June 22, 1994): 1904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.1994.03510480028015.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

10

Kumar, Sameer. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations." Publications 6, no. 3 (August 16, 2018): 37. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/publications6030037.

Full text

Abstract:

Increasing specialization, changes in the institutional incentives for publication, and a host of other reasons have brought about a marked trend towards co-authored articles among researchers. These changes have impacted Science and Technology (S&T) policies worldwide. Co-authorship is often considered to be a reliable proxy for assessing research collaborations at micro, meso, and macro levels. Although co-authorship in a scholarly publication brings numerous benefits to the participating authors, it has also given rise to issues of publication integrity, such as ghost authorships and honorary authorships. The code of conduct of bodies such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) make it clear that only those who have significantly contributed to the study should be on the authorship list. Those who have contributed little have to be appropriately “acknowledged” in footnotes or in the acknowledgement section. However, these principles are sometimes transgressed, and a complete solution still remains elusive.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

11

Nikumbh, Dhiraj B. "Ghost authorship Vs Gift authorship." IP Archives of Cytology and Histopathology Research 7, no. 3 (September 15, 2022): 149–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.18231/j.achr.2022.033.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

12

Hamroyeva, Shahlo. "PECULIARITIES AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE AUTHORSHIP CORPUSES." INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WORD ART 2, no. 3 (February 28, 2020): 80–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.26739/2181-9297-2020-2-11.

Full text

Abstract:

The article deals with the relationship of the authorship’s lexicography with the corpus of authorship, the concept of concordance and the frequency of dictionary, the general and unique character of the authorship corpuses. In particular, the basis of the author’s corpus is explained in detail -the author’s creative vocabulary and the lexicography of the author’s corpus, which is a derivative phenomenon of the author’s corpus.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

13

Waseem, Urooj, Shehryar Awan, Khizar Ansar Malik, Danish Javed, Sana Zafar, Fasih Ahmad Khan, and Amina Tariq. "Questionable Research Practices Among Dentists." Pakistan Journal of Medical and Health Sciences 16, no. 9 (September 30, 2022): 415–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.53350/pjmhs22169415.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective: The objective of the study is to explore the frequency of mal-practicing in terms of giving and accepting honorary authorships among dentists in private dental colleges of Lahore Method: This descriptive crossectional study was conducted to collect data from dentists working in private dental colleges of Lahore regarding plagiarism practices. Three private dental colleges were targeted from where data of 95 dentists was obtained. Data was collected using questionnaire to assess the questionable research practices. Results: Refusal on data sharing with legitimate colleagues was never practiced by majority of participants (46.1%). Addition of author(s) to a research paper who have not contributed in study was sometimes practiced by majority of participants (27.9%). Majority of participants reported that they occasionally accept honorary authorship for which you did not qualify (26.26%). Majority of participants reported that they never demanded any honorary authorship (48.41%). Refusal to give authorship to the person who had worked in the study was never practiced by majority of participants (62.11%). Majority of participants reported that they never submission without taking consent from other authors of a manuscript or grant application (65.26%). Majority of the participants reported that they never do a submission of single manuscript to more than one journals at one time (56.84%). Conclusion: Among dentist, mal-practicing in terms of collaboration and authorship is quite low as compared to in other health professional education as per literature. Keywords: Dental education, Ethical policies, Honorary authorships

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

14

Goddiksen, Mads Paludan, Mikkel Willum Johansen, Anna Catharina Armond, Christine Clavien, Linda Hogan, Nóra Kovács, Marcus Tang Merit, et al. "“The person in power told me to”—European PhD students’ perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice." PLOS ONE 18, no. 1 (January 12, 2023): e0280018. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0280018.

Full text

Abstract:

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to “a person in power”. Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

15

Kim, Soo Young. "Authorship." Korean Journal of Family Medicine 37, no. 1 (2016): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.2016.37.1.1.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

16

Taranta, Angelo. "Authorship." Annals of Internal Medicine 113, no. 10 (November 15, 1990): 809. http://dx.doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-113-10-809_2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

17

Zellmer, William A. "Authorship." American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy 43, no. 1 (January 1, 1986): 71–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/43.1.71.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

18

Schmidt, Kari L. "Authorship." Journal for Nurses in Professional Development 32, no. 1 (2016): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/nnd.0000000000000235.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

19

Watts, C. "Authorship." Neurosurgery 20, no. 6 (June 1987): 829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006123-198706000-00001.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

20

Goldwyn, Robert M. "Authorship." Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 114, Supplement (October 2004): 11–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006534-200410001-00013.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

21

Park, Kie Young. "Authorship." Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition 15, Suppl 1 (2012): S26. http://dx.doi.org/10.5223/pghn.2012.15.suppl1.s26.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

22

Van Way, Charles. "Authorship." Journal of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition 30, no. 4 (July 2006): 368–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0148607106030004368.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

23

Schulze, Richard. "Authorship." Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 27, no. 11 (November 2001): 1709–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01200-7.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

24

Shingleton, Bradford J. "Authorship." Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 27, no. 11 (November 2001): 1710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0886-3350(01)01201-9.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

25

KLEIN, CATHERINE J., and PHYLIS B. MOSER-VEILLON. "Authorship." Journal of the American Dietetic Association 99, no. 1 (January 1999): 77–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0002-8223(99)00020-6.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

26

Watts, Clark. "Authorship." Surgical Neurology 72, no. 1 (July 2009): 99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.surneu.2009.03.020.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

27

Selleri, Andrea. "Authorship." Victorian Literature and Culture 46, no. 3-4 (2018): 580–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1060150318000293.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

28

Corea, Enoka, and Himani Molligoda. "Authorship." Journal of the Postgraduate Institute of Medicine 7, no. 1 (July 24, 2020): 110. http://dx.doi.org/10.4038/jpgim.8291.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

29

Nativio, Donna G. "Authorship." Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners 12, no. 9 (September 2000): 351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2000.tb00193.x.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

30

Nativio, Donna G. "Authorship." JONA: The Journal of Nursing Administration 24, no. 4 (April 1994): 58–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00005110-199404000-00015.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

31

Sivapathasundharam, B. "Authorship." Indian Journal of Dental Research 19, no. 1 (2008): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.38922.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

32

Francel, Thomas J. "AUTHORSHIP." Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 91, no. 2 (February 1993): 381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00006534-199302000-00039.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

33

Johnson, Jonas T. "Authorship." Laryngoscope 115, no. 11 (November 2005): 1903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.mlg.0000191563.27215.e3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

34

Barker, A., R. A. Powell, R. S. Bhopal, J. M. Rankin, E. McColl, R. Stacy, P. H. Pearson, et al. "Authorship." BMJ 314, no. 7086 (April 5, 1997): 1046. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7086.1046.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

35

Elston, Dirk M. "Authorship." Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 79, no. 6 (December 2018): 1025. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2017.11.008.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

36

Wilcox, Linda J. "Authorship." JAMA 280, no. 3 (July 15, 1998): 216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.3.216.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

37

Greenblatt, David J. "Authorship." Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development 11, no. 12 (November 30, 2022): 1362–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.1190.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

38

Bhandari, Mohit, Jason W. Busse, Abhaya V. Kulkarni, P. J. Devereaux, Pamela Leece, and Gordon H. Guyatt. "Interpreting Authorship Order and Corresponding Authorship." Epidemiology 15, no. 1 (January 2004): 125–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000100282.03466.2c.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

39

BACHARACH, SONDRA, and DEBORAH TOLLEFSEN. "Co-Authorship, Multiple Authorship, and Posthumous Authorship: A Reply to Hick." Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 73, no. 3 (July 2015): 331–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jaac.12187.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

40

Marcelin, Rose A., Kristina M. Rabarison, and Monika K. Rabarison. "Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Prevention Research Centers: An Exploratory Study." Public Health Reports 134, no. 3 (March 26, 2019): 249–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033354919834589.

Full text

Abstract:

Objective: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) collaborate on public health activities with community agencies and organizations. We evaluated these collaborations by studying the relationships between co-authors from the PRCs and community agencies that published at least 1 article together in the first year of the program. Methods: We identified all the authors of articles published by PRCs and collaborating members in peer-reviewed journals between September 2014 and September 2015 and constructed a network showing the links between and among all the authors. We characterized the network with 4 measures of social structure (network components, network density, average clustering coefficient, average distance) and 3 measures of individual author performances (degree-, betweenness-, and closeness-centrality). Results: The 413 articles had 1804 individual authors and 7995 co-authorship relationships (links) in 212 peer-reviewed journals. These authors and co-authors formed 44 separate, nonoverlapping groups (components). The largest “giant” component containing most of the links involved 66.3% (n = 1196) of the authors and 73.7% (n = 5889) of the links. We identified 136 “information brokers” (authors with high closeness centrality: those who have the shortest links to the most authors). Two authors with high betweenness centrality (who had the highest number of co-authors; 104 and 107) had the greatest ability to mediate co-authorships. Network density was low; only 0.5% of all potential co-authorships were realized (7995 actual co-authorship/1 628 110 potential co-authorships). Conclusion: Information brokers and co-authorship mediators should be encouraged to communicate more with each other to increase the number of collaborations between network members and, hence, the number of co-authorships.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

41

Bhagat, Vijay. "Women Authorship of Scholarly Publications on COVID-19: Leadership Analysis." Feminist Research 4, no. 1 (June 10, 2020): 7–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.21523/gcj2.20010102.

Full text

Abstract:

Women are continuously underrepresented in authorship of scholarly publications. 1) The authorship positions as first -, last and corresponding author, and 2) performance as citations and Altmetric records of published papers are indicators of leadership qualities of the authors. Comparative leadership qualities of women authors were calculated using odds ratios. The proportion analysis was performed to get comparative contributions and per article citations and Altmetric records to understand the quality of publications. Information about scholarly publications was downloaded from Dimensions and data about names and gender was collected from different online sources. Author’s gender was detected based on first name. The proportions of women authorship as first, last and corresponding author were calculated to understand the share of women in scholarly publications. Women show underrepresentation in authorship of scholarly publications on COVID-19. Female-to-male odds ratio was calculated for these authorships and the performance was calculated of research papers authored by women as first and last authors. Female-to-male odds ratios calculated for 1) women authorships as first author, 2) citations, and 3) Altmetric tracking records for articles authored by women as first author were more than 1. Further, 1) women authorship as last- and corresponding authors and 2) citations and Altmetric tracking records for articles authored women as last author show calculated value were less than 1. All these ratios were considered as indicators of women leadership in scholarly publications on COVID-19. Leadership index was calculated to understand the level of women leadership in this field. Calculated leadership index for women (7.11) shows leadership qualities of women authors. Financial support provided was almost equal for research reported in women and men first authored papers. The field is very new; it is as active and challenging area of research for social justice and welfare society. The method and results reported in the paper is useful for preparation of research policies and monitoring the research projects, grants with feminist approach.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

42

Khan, Iman F., Suvethavarshini Ketheeswaran, Ismail Turker, Elvin Alasgarov, Brea Wiley, and Gunel Guliyeva. "766 12-year Analysis of Gender Disparity in Authorship of Peer-Reviewed Burn and Wound Care Literature." Journal of Burn Care & Research 43, Supplement_1 (March 23, 2022): S190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jbcr/irac012.319.

Full text

Abstract:

Abstract Introduction The importance of gender equity and gender representation in academic publications has long been emphasized in medicine. It has been established that women represent a smaller proportion of primary and senior authors in high-impact medical journals than men and that original research articles written by women as primary and senior authors are less frequently sited than those authored by men. Currently, there is limited data evaluating whether this gender bias is present in plastic surgery and burn publications. We used bibliometric analysis of original research publications to analyze gender bias against women in one burn journal. Methods Using the journal, Burns, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of research publications from 2009 to 2020. A gender determining application was used to characterize the gender of the first and senior author. Ratios of male:male, female:male, male:female, and female:female were obtained and analyzed. Results Of the 1677 publications included, 40% have female first authors and 25.5% had female senior authors. Male:male authorships had the highest number of publications. Female:female authorship had the lowest number of publications of all the other ratios from 2009-2012, however there was a steep increase in 2013 in which male:female authorship had the lowest number of publications. Male senior authorship was associated with 2.9-fold increase in male first authorship [OR=2.99(95% CI 2.39, 3.76); p < 0.0001). Conclusions Female representation in senior authorship positions in burn and wound care publications is increasing, however is still far from reaching gender parity. By analyzing authorship ratios by gender, we recommend a new way to evaluate gender disparity in burn and wound care academia.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

43

KOÇER, Nazım Emrah. "Right of authorship, and responsibility of authorship." Journal of Current Pathology 3, no. 2 (2019): 115. http://dx.doi.org/10.5146/jcpath.2019.55.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

44

Lapeña, José Florencio F. "Authorship Controversies: Gift, Guest and Ghost Authorship." Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 34, no. 1 (June 18, 2019): 4–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v34i1.957.

Full text

Abstract:

Authorship, “the state or fact of being the writer of a book, article, or document, or the creator of a work of art,”1 derives from the word author, auctor, autour, autor “father, creator, one who brings about, one who makes or creates,” from Old French auctor, acteor “author, originator, creator, instigator,” directly from the Latin auctor “promoter, doer; responsible person, teacher,” literally “one who causes to grow.”2 It implies a creative privilege and responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. In the biomedical arena, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) “recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”3 Thus, all persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify as authors should be so listed.3 The first of these general principles means that all persons listed as authors should meet the four ICMJE criteria for authorship; the second principle means that all those who meet the four ICMJE criteria for authorship should be listed as authors.3 The first part of the statement disqualifies honorific “gift” authors, complementary “guest” authors, and anonymous “ghost” authors from being listed as authors. The second part ensures the listing of all those who qualify as authors, even if they are no longer part of the institution or group from which the work emanates (such as students who have graduated or residents and fellows who have completed their postgraduate training). Honorific or “gift” authorship takes place when a subordinate (or junior) person lists a superior (or senior) person as an author, even if that person did not meet the four ICMJE authorship criteria.4,5 Bestowing the gift on a Chief, Chair, Department Head, Director, Dean, or such other person is often done in gratitude, but carries an unspoken expectation that the favor will be returned in the future. It can also be bestowed under coercive conditions (that may overlap with those of guest authorship discussed next).4.5 It is unethical because the gifted person does not qualify for authorship when at most only acknowledgement is his or her due. In the extreme, such a person can be put in the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation of being unable to comment on the supposedly co-authored work when asked to do so. Moreover, the unqualified co-author(s) may actually attempt to wash their hands of any allegations of misconduct, claiming for example that the resident first author “plagiarized the material” or “fabricated or manipulated the data” but “I/we certainly had nothing to do with that” - - hence the fourth criterion for authorship came to be.3 Reviewers and Editors may suspect “gift” authorship when for instance, a resident listed as first author writes the paper in the first person, using the pronoun “I” instead of “we” and thanks the consultant co-author under the “acknowledgements” section. The suspicions are further reinforced when the concerned co-author(s) do not participate in, or contribute to revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content during the review and editing process. Guest authorship takes place when influential or well-known individuals “lend” their name to a manuscript to boost its prestige, even though they had nothing to do with its creation.6,7 They may have been invited to do so by one or more of the actual authors, but they willingly agree, considering the arrangement mutually-beneficial. Thus, a student or resident may knowingly invite an adviser or consultant to be listed as co-author, even if the latter did not meet authorship criteria. The former perceives that having a known co-author increases the chances of a favorable review and publication; the latter effectively adds another publication to his or her curriculum vitae. It is not difficult to see how such symbioses may thrive in the “publish or perish” milieu of academe. Research advising alone, even if editing of the research paper was performed, do not qualify one for authorship (Cf. “gift” authorship). This is not to say that a research, thesis or dissertation adviser may not be listed as co-author – as long as he or she meets the 4 ICMJE criteria for authorship.3 A related misconduct is the practice by certain persons with seniority of insisting their names be listed first, even if more junior scholars did all the innovative thinking and research on a project. Indeed, the order of authorship can be a source of unhappiness and dispute. Authors be listed in the order of their contributions to the work – the one who contributed most is listed first, and the order of listing should be a joint decision of all co-authors at the start of the study (reviewed periodically). Ghost authorship usually pertains to paid professional writers who anonymously produce material that is officially attributed to another author.7,8 They may operate out of establishments that manufacture term papers, theses, and dissertations for the right price (such as the infamous C.M. Recto district in downtown Manila, now replaced by numerous online services). They may also be employed by the pharmaceutical industry to write promotional, favorable studies that will list well-known persons (professors, scientists, senior clinicians) as authors, often with consent and adequate compensation.8 Examples include “a professor at the University of Wisconsin” being paid “$1,500 in return for putting his name” on “an article on the ‘therapeutic effects’ of their diet pill Redux (dexfenfluramine),” that was “pulled from the market” a year later “as doctors began reporting heart-valve injuries in as many as one-third of patients taking the drug” and the drug “later linked to dozens of deaths.”9 Similar cases involved the “deadly drug” rofecoxib (Vioxx) “eventually blamed for some 60,000+ deaths,” that “was also linked to a number of shameful scandals relating to fraudulent studies and the use of ghostwriters to boost sales.”9 The costs involved are not meager; Parke-Davis paid “a medical education communication company (MECC) to write articles in support of the drug” Neurontin (gabapentin) “to the tune of $13,000 to $18,000 per article. In turn, MECC paid $1,000 each to friendly physicians and pharmacists to sign off as authors of the articles.”9 Pfizer (who acquired Neurontin form Parke-Davis) “was found guilty of illegally promoting off-label uses of Neurontin,” and “fined more than $142 million in damages.”9 Whether or not morbidities or mortalities ensue from the practice, both ghosts and beneficiary-authors should be held liable in such situations. Clearly, the practice of “gift,” “guest,” and “ghost” authorship should not be entertained by authors or tolerated by editors and reviewers. Authorship should be based on the ICMJE authorship criteria. Our editors and reviewers vigilantly strive to uphold and protect the rights and welfare of our authors and the integrity and soundness of their research. We call on all fellows, diplomates and residents in training to do the same.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

45

Brand, Richard A. "Editorial: Further Thoughts on Authorship: Gift Authorship." Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 470, no. 10 (July 31, 2012): 2926–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11999-012-2504-3.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

46

Suryani, Ade Jaya. "BANTENESE AUTHORS AND THEIR WORKS." ALQALAM 30, no. 1 (April 30, 2013): 184. http://dx.doi.org/10.32678/alqalam.v30i1.1061.

Full text

Abstract:

This article describes the authorships in Banten by analyzing the authors as follow: Syaikh Yusuf al-Maqassari; Syekh Nawawi AI-Bantani; Hoesein Djajadiningrat and his brothers; Gola Gong and other new generation authors. It also tries to explain the biography of the authors, their works, and social conditions that have probably influenced their authorships. Key words: Authorship, Banten, Syaikh Yusuf al-Maqassari, Syekh Nawawi AI-Bantani, Hoesein Djajadiningrat and Gola Gong

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

47

Desai, Chetna. "Authorship issues." Indian Journal of Pharmacology 44, no. 4 (2012): 433. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.99294.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

48

Ballard, Warren. "Determining authorship." Wildlife Society Bulletin 33, no. 3 (September 2005): 801. http://dx.doi.org/10.2193/0091-7648(2005)33[801:da]2.0.co;2.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

49

Vuckovic-Dekic, Ljiljana. "Authorship-coauthorship." Archive of Oncology 11, no. 3 (2003): 211–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/aoo0303211v.

Full text

Abstract:

The scientific authorship is based on creativity and originality. Apart from being the means for the attribution of the credit, the authorship also comprises the responsibility and accountability, and it is also the basis for evaluation of scientists. Because of steady rise in the number of multiauthored articles in biomedical sciences, the problem of undeserved authorship has emerged. Since the false authorship undermines the very basis of the publication ethics, the scientific community has undertaken measures for the prevention and remedy of such a highly unethical issue.

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

50

Juola, Patrick. "Authorship Attribution." Foundations and Trends® in Information Retrieval 1, no. 3 (2007): 233–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1561/1500000005.

Full text

APA, Harvard, Vancouver, ISO, and other styles

Journal articles on the topic 'Authorship'

Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles