Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations

Kumar, Sameer

doi:10.3390/publications6030037

Cited by 36 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Many previous authors have suggested that requiring contributions to be spelled out reduces "honorary" authorship, in which researchers (typically senior ones) are listed as co-authors despite not satisfying the extant criteria [10][11][12][13]. This may be true, and superficially this would be good because honorary authorship is a dishonest practice.…”

Section: Benefits Of a Contributorship Model With A Standardized Taxomentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What

Holcombe¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participation in the writing or revising of a manuscript is, according to many journal guidelines, necessary to be listed as an author of the resulting article. This is the traditional conception of authorship. But there are good reasons to shift to a contributorship model, under which it is not necessary to contribute to the writing or revision of a manuscript, and all those who make substantial contributions to a project are credited. Many journals and publishers have already taken steps in this direction, and further adoption will have several benefits. This article makes the case for continuing to move down that path. Use of a contributorship model should improve the ability of universities and funders to identify effective individual researchers and improving their ability to identify the right mix of researchers needed to advance modern science. Other benefits should include facilitating the formation of productive collaborations and the creation of important scientific tools and software. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) taxonomy is a machine-readable standard already incorporated into some journal management systems and it allows incremental transition toward contributorship.

show abstract

Section: Benefits Of a Contributorship Model With A Standardized Taxomentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What

Holcombe¹

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Co-authorship is a process in which two or more authors share their talents and sources by adopting one of the cooperation methods and begin a collaboration to create a scientific work. One method that is used in probing the co-authorship collaboration is drawing co-authorship networks and its analysis (Koseoglu, Okumus, Putra, Yildiz, & Dogan, 2018;Kumar, 2018;Sonnenwald, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Co-Authorship and Subject Areas Network in MOOCS’ Scientific Production in Web of Science

Asadzandi¹,

Mojtahedzadeh²,

Mohammadi³

et al. 2019

Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) is a new phenomenon in online learning which are held by higher education institutions and universities. MOOCs is larger than normal classes and it is free as well. The present study aims to specify the authors' structure of co-authorship and the required indicators in analyzing co-authorship, co-authorship network of countries, organizations and subject areas in MOOCs. All productions regarding scientific areas of MOOCs were extracted from the Web of Science from the beginning till 2016. There are 2195 extracted documents that were saved as txt and isi formats. Co-authorship drawing networks were prepared by website software CiteSpace version 5.1.R8 SE and Gephi version 0.9.2. MOOCs co-authorship network is regarded as spare that means the number of ties is less than nodes. This indicates that authors in this area have fewer tendencies for scientific relations. European countries play the main role in this area and their co-authorship is considerable. Harvard University has considerable co-authorship in this domain. According to the results of this study, MOOCs' network suffers from the lack of collaboration.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What

Holcombe

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participation in the writing or revising of a manuscript is, according to many journal guidelines, necessary to be listed as an author of the resulting article. This is the traditional concept of authorship. But there are good reasons to shift to a contributorship model, under which it is not necessary to contribute to the writing or revision of a manuscript, and all those who make substantial contributions to a project are credited. Many journals and publishers have already taken steps in this direction, and further adoption will have several benefits. This article makes the case for continuing to move down that path. Use of a contributorship model should improve the ability of universities and funders to identify effective individual researchers and improving their ability to identify the right mix of researchers needed to advance modern science. Other benefits should include facilitating the formation of productive collaborations and the creation of important scientific tools and software. The CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy) taxonomy is a machine-readable standard already incorporated into some journal management systems and it allows incremental transition toward contributorship.

show abstract

Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations

Cited by 36 publications

References 50 publications

Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What

Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What

The Co-Authorship and Subject Areas Network in MOOCS’ Scientific Production in Web of Science

Contributorship, Not Authorship: Use CRediT to Indicate Who Did What

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About