Nless my colleague clearly makes a larger contribution. In these cases

Nless my colleague clearly makes a larger contribution. In these cases, their name is placed first in the publication. That is the case in the paper you cited in your e-mail. The authors are put in the order of the number of hours they spent on it. Although The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) also has specific criteria when dealing with authorship issues [53], honorary authorship (where the author becomes part of the author list without providing significant contribution), is still a major issue. As some respondents expressed: “I did not benefit much from joint works in the past, as I had to do almost all aspects of research and publication. Unlike the past, I now work with my PhD students, who do the research work, and I help to generate ideas, share models and techniques, improve writing, undertake editing, publishing and so on. Now I like to work with others who, in my view, are not ‘free riders’ but are prepared to spend time and to share analytical skills where I have weaknesses to raise the quality of my papers. Most of my publications are sole authored; my future joint works should be genuinely collaborative”. “Based on what I see in the literature, it seems that for junior academics, co-authorship with senior academics is a way to get published in higher ranking journals. Additionally, what is even more GS-9620 web common is that you see senior academics publish in high-ranking journals mentioning in the footnote “excellent research assistance from” often followed by a battery of PhD students. I think that is an abomination. If you GDC-0084 cost cleaned and prepared the data, which is one of the most important parts in the quantitative literature I work in, you should be a coauthor, as is the case in the natural sciences.” Another response from a researcher in Germany offered the following perspective:PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,12 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associations”Order of authorship might also be hierarchical, as is common in Germany: the most senior member of the team is usually the lead author even if they have not done anything for the paper at all.” Cases of honorary authorship have led administrators to divide the scores among the coauthors for promotion purposes. This is not without objections, as some researchers feel that it stifles genuine collaboration. The issue of who should be the first author can create friction at times, even to the point of it needing to be resolved in court [54]. In interviews with Nobel Laureates that inquired about their name order practices, Zuckerman [49] found that laureates exercise their noblesse oblige by giving more credit to less eminent co-workers as their eminence grows. Hart [20] indicated that authors mentioned various ways in which they listed their names in a co-authored paper, although a vast majority (46.9 ) indicated that they listed the names according to the `contribution’ of each author. Some of the other methods that can be used include alphabetical order with intent to indicate an equal contribution (15.3 ) or without intent to indicate an equal contribution (9.2 ). Hart [20] also mentioned cases of `helped’ first authorship, where authors of four articles indicated that the first author was in line for tenure and promotion; thus, the co-authors aided to further the individual’s cause by assigning him or her first authorship.Distribution of task as a mentor and as a colleagueResearch collaboration i.Nless my colleague clearly makes a larger contribution. In these cases, their name is placed first in the publication. That is the case in the paper you cited in your e-mail. The authors are put in the order of the number of hours they spent on it. Although The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) also has specific criteria when dealing with authorship issues [53], honorary authorship (where the author becomes part of the author list without providing significant contribution), is still a major issue. As some respondents expressed: “I did not benefit much from joint works in the past, as I had to do almost all aspects of research and publication. Unlike the past, I now work with my PhD students, who do the research work, and I help to generate ideas, share models and techniques, improve writing, undertake editing, publishing and so on. Now I like to work with others who, in my view, are not ‘free riders’ but are prepared to spend time and to share analytical skills where I have weaknesses to raise the quality of my papers. Most of my publications are sole authored; my future joint works should be genuinely collaborative”. “Based on what I see in the literature, it seems that for junior academics, co-authorship with senior academics is a way to get published in higher ranking journals. Additionally, what is even more common is that you see senior academics publish in high-ranking journals mentioning in the footnote “excellent research assistance from” often followed by a battery of PhD students. I think that is an abomination. If you cleaned and prepared the data, which is one of the most important parts in the quantitative literature I work in, you should be a coauthor, as is the case in the natural sciences.” Another response from a researcher in Germany offered the following perspective:PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0157633 June 20,12 /Perceptions of Scholars in the Field of Economics on Co-Authorship Associations”Order of authorship might also be hierarchical, as is common in Germany: the most senior member of the team is usually the lead author even if they have not done anything for the paper at all.” Cases of honorary authorship have led administrators to divide the scores among the coauthors for promotion purposes. This is not without objections, as some researchers feel that it stifles genuine collaboration. The issue of who should be the first author can create friction at times, even to the point of it needing to be resolved in court [54]. In interviews with Nobel Laureates that inquired about their name order practices, Zuckerman [49] found that laureates exercise their noblesse oblige by giving more credit to less eminent co-workers as their eminence grows. Hart [20] indicated that authors mentioned various ways in which they listed their names in a co-authored paper, although a vast majority (46.9 ) indicated that they listed the names according to the `contribution’ of each author. Some of the other methods that can be used include alphabetical order with intent to indicate an equal contribution (15.3 ) or without intent to indicate an equal contribution (9.2 ). Hart [20] also mentioned cases of `helped’ first authorship, where authors of four articles indicated that the first author was in line for tenure and promotion; thus, the co-authors aided to further the individual’s cause by assigning him or her first authorship.Distribution of task as a mentor and as a colleagueResearch collaboration i.

Leave a Reply