Authorship, Co-Authorship, and Multiple Authorship

Hick, Darren Hudson

doi:10.1111/jaac.12075

Cited by 21 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Authorship, co-authorship, and multiple authorship all revolve around issues of power, responsibility, and creation (Hick, 2014). It has been observed that authors who share a kinship tend to hold influential positions within their collaborative networks, as they can leverage their resources (Prosperi et al 2016).…”

Section: Large Number Advantagementioning

confidence: 99%

Reading and Writing Research Based on Surname Group in a University (2012-2023)

Liu

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to investigate how surnames influence academic achievements and hierarchy in higher education. It analyzes millions of book circulation records at Nanjing Normal University’s library from 2012 to 2023. The study employs various data analysis techniques such as Kendall coefficients, binary logistic regression, factor analysis, scale optimization, survival analysis, factor analysis, and structural equation modeling to examine the reading and writing patterns of the top 300 surnames. The results are analyzed within the framework of female-dominated education and teacher preparation. The results suggest a noticeable pattern of consistency in 12-year book borrowing and renewing habits within the top 300 reader surnames, and a complex hierarchical misalignment between the reader hierarchy, book category hierarchy, and author hierarchy, resulting in a staggered correspondence. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, readers with surnames above the average have shown a decreased willingness to use the book renewal service. This decreased intention has had a more pronounced effect on the logical rationality of readers, resulting in a negative impact on females and literary books, and a positive impact on STEM books.

show abstract

Section: Large Number Advantagementioning

confidence: 99%

Reading and Writing Research Based on Surname Group in a University (2012-2023)

Liu

2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Visibility, creativity, and collective working practices in art and science

Anscomb

2020

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual artists and scientists frequently employ the labour of assistants and technicians, however these workers generally receive little recognition for their contribution to the production of artistic and scientific work. They are effectively "invisible". This invisible status however, comes at the cost of a better understanding of artistic and scientific work, and improvements in artistic and scientific practice. To enhance understanding of artistic and scientific work, and these practices more broadly, it is vital to discern the nature of an assistant or technician's contribution to the production of a work, which is difficult as it is uncommon to discuss these workers. To address this, I investigate how different kinds of parallel working arrangements in collective artistic and scientific practices affect the creative potential of individuals involved. Different working arrangements permit different degrees of autonomy for individuals involved in these practices. Significantly, a lack of autonomy precludes the opportunity to act spontaneously and so exercise, what I term, "creative agency". Evaluating the contribution of an assistant or technician based on the degree of autonomy that they are granted in the production of a work is an approach that I show can be used to precisely determine the nature of their contribution to the production of a work and accordingly, what kind of recognition an agent should receive for this. Importantly, this approach has the advantage of explaining the artistic and epistemic significance of different kinds of contribution to the production of artistic and scientific work.

show abstract

Engaging the many-hands problem of generative-AI outputs: a framework for attributing credit

Khosrowi,

Finn,

Clark

2024

AI Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent wave of generative AI (GenAI) systems like Stable Diffusion or ChatGPT that can produce images, text and code from human prompts raises controversial issues about creatorship, originality, creativity and copyright. This paper focuses on creatorship: who creates and should be credited with the outputs made with the help of GenAI? There is currently significant moral, legal and regulatory uncertainty around these questions. We develop a novel framework, called CCC (collective-centered creation), that helps resolve this uncertainty. According to CCC, GenAI outputs are created by collectives in the first instance. Claims to creatorship come in degrees and depend on the nature and significance of individual contributions made by the various agents and entities involved, including users, GenAI systems, developers, producers of training data and others. We demonstrate how CCC can help navigate a range of ongoing controversies around the responsible development and deployment of GenAI technologies and help more accurately attribute credit where it is due.

show abstract

Authorship, Co-Authorship, and Multiple Authorship

Cited by 21 publications

References 3 publications

Reading and Writing Research Based on Surname Group in a University (2012-2023)

Reading and Writing Research Based on Surname Group in a University (2012-2023)

Visibility, creativity, and collective working practices in art and science

Engaging the many-hands problem of generative-AI outputs: a framework for attributing credit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About