Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?

Cronin, Blaise

doi:10.1002/asi.1097

Cited by 396 publications

(170 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We recorded one CR written by nine authors, and another written by ten authors! The growth in scientific collaboration -also called 'hyper-authorship' (Cronin 2002: 560) -across disciplines, institutions, sectors and national borders has been extensively documented (e.g. Cronin 2005Cronin , 2012, and numerous diachronic studies of different disciplines, fields and sub-fields have revealed a striking growth in the average number of co-authors per paper (Laband and Tollison 2000;Cronin et al 2003).…”

Section: Authorship and Collaboration Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Titling and authorship practices in medical case reports: a diachronic study

Salager‐Meyer¹,

Ariza

Briceño³

2014

CAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is a diachronic analysis of a corpus of 180 titles drawn from Case Reports (CRs) published in the BMJ and BMJ Case Reports between 1840 and 2009. The corpus was divided into three blocks, and the frequency of occurrence of 69 text-internal variables was recorded in each title. Between-block comparisons were carried out, and Student's t-tests IntroductionSince before Hippocrates, case reports (CRs) have made, and still make, a valuable contribution to the advancement of medical science (Friedell 1973; Morgan 1985;Pascal 1985;Simpson and Griggs 1985;Morris 1989). McCarthy and Reilly (2000) report, for example, that a search of the MEDLINE database from 1996 to 2000, using the Medical Subject Heading term 'case report' , retrieved more than 140,000 citations. More recently a search of Web of Science using the same MSH term retrieved 160 articles from 1953 and 4,011 from (cited in Gawrylewski 2007. Communication & MedicineGiven the unpredictable nature of medicine, many medical professionals will indeed have come across a patient who has not been a textbook case. The patient may have presented in an unusual way, had a strange pathology, or reacted to a medical intervention in a manner that has not been seen before. The publication of such novelties and curiosities as CRs has for many centuries been a fundamental way of sharing knowledge and conveying medical experience, and throughout history there have been famous CRs that have helped shape the way we view health and disease (Jamjoom et al. 2009;Salager-Meyer 2012).In recent years, though, and especially since the 1990s (Maisonneuve et al. 2010), CRs have come under scrutiny and disfavor among some members of the medical scientific community, and they are now frequently relegated to the lowest rank in the hierarchy of study design. Indeed, there are those who argue, for example, that CRs are 'passé, trivial ' (Rose and Corn 1984), and that they are increasingly irrelevant in current medical practice and education (Yadav 2006) because their obscurity and rarity appeal only to a specialized few, and because they add little to everyday medical practice. What is more, so argue the 'opponents' of CR publishing, their anecdotal nature lacks the scientific rigor of large, wellconducted studies. CRs have therefore fallen down the hierarchical ladder of medical evidence, and many 64 Françoise Salager-Meyer et al. medical journals, for 'shortage of page space' , now refuse to publish CRs (for a thorough analysis of the growing obsolescence of the psychiatric case report as a knowledge-bearing text, see Berkenkotter 2008).Another reason why this 'endangered species' (Rose and Corn 1984) sometimes receives low esteem and 'is frequently dismissed -unfairly so -as unscientific' (Simpson and Griggs 1985: 403) is because CRs are considered to be non-citable items (Morris 1989), thus lowering the impact factor of journals where citation data rule decisions ( Van der Wall and Wilde 2009; Maisonnneuve et al. 2010). Indeed, Patsopoulos et al. (2005) found that ...

show abstract

Section: Authorship and Collaboration Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Titling and authorship practices in medical case reports: a diachronic study

Salager‐Meyer¹,

Ariza

Briceño³

2014

CAM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First of all, it is difficult to measure individual contributions to research carried out in collaboration, and secondly, different studies have reported the inflationary tendencies of collaboration indexes (Cronin, 2001). Thus, a number of challenges need to be addressed before integrating scientific collaboration as a variable in research evaluation processes (Cronin and Weaver, 1995;González-Alcaide and Gómez-Ferri, 2014).…”

Section: Discussion Individual Indicators For Scientific Activity Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Researchers Through Bibliometric Indicators: The Area of Information and Library Science in Spain as a Case Study (2001–2015)

González‐Alcaide

Gorraiz

2018

Front. Res. Metr. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research activities are subject to constant processes of evaluation, which increasingly include the use of bibliometric indicators to support decision-making. This paper presents a model for the individual evaluation of different facets of researchers' work and discusses the interest in using "control" parameters to identify deviations suggesting inappropriate conduct. The proposed model is illustrated through an empirical example that analyzes the activity of Spanish researchers in the area of Library and Information Science. There are important differences among the most productive authors, and in many cases, there is no association between the degree of participation in high-impact journals and citation indicators. The control indicators help to identify behaviors such as excessive self-citation, endogamy with regard to the principal journal of publication, and co-dependence with other investigators. We have identified different roles related to the concept of leadership, measured by means of the participation as first or corresponding author, prestige, direct contribution, active direction, supervision, or management.

show abstract

“…In recent years, many other authorship-related research, such as the Shakespeare controversy (Burrows, 2012), has continued to make frequent headlines in the popular media. In academia too, the much debated application of bibliom-10 etry (Cronin, 2001) or well-known cases of plagiarism (Maurer et al, 2006) hardly suggest that the notion of authorship would have suffered a major loss of public interest. Unsurprisingly, automated authorship analysis (Juola, 2006;Koppel et al, 2009;Stamatatos, 2009b) …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authenticating the writings of Julius Caesar

Kestemont

Stover

Koppel

et al. 2016

Expert Systems with Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we shed new light on the authenticity of the Corpus Caesarianum, a group of five commentaries describing the campaigns of Julius Caesar (100-44 BC), the founder of the Roman empire. While Caesar himself has authored at least part of these commentaries, the authorship of the rest of the texts remains a puzzle that has persisted for nineteen centuries. In particular, the role of Caesar's general Aulus Hirtius, who has claimed a role in shaping the corpus, has remained in contention. Determining the authorship of documents is an increasingly important authentication problem in information and computer science, with valuable applications, ranging from the domain of art history to counter-terrorism research.We describe two state-of-the-art authorship verification systems and benchmark them on 6 present-day evaluation corpora, as well as a Latin benchmark dataset. Regarding Caesar's writings, our analysis allow us to establish that Hirtius's claims to part of the corpus must be considered legitimate. We thus demonstrate how computational methods constitute a valuable methodological complement to traditional, expert-based approaches to document authentication.

show abstract

Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?

Cited by 396 publications

References 66 publications

Titling and authorship practices in medical case reports: a diachronic study

Titling and authorship practices in medical case reports: a diachronic study

Assessment of Researchers Through Bibliometric Indicators: The Area of Information and Library Science in Spain as a Case Study (2001–2015)

Authenticating the writings of Julius Caesar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About