Subconscious Ratings of Inappropriate Coauthorship in Physics

E. Tarnow
{"title":"Subconscious Ratings of Inappropriate Coauthorship in Physics","authors":"E. Tarnow","doi":"10.2174/1874761200802010018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the largest and most detailed survey on the ethics of scientific coauthorship to date, members of the Ameri- can Physical Society (APS) were asked to judge the number of appropriate coauthors on their last published papers in three different ways (1). The papers reported on by the respondents were papers in which the respondents' authorship was more involved than chance would dictate. From this discrepancy it is possible to infer \"subconscious\" rates of inappropri- ate authorship. The shapes of the curves of these subconscious rates are very similar to the curves of the consciously re- ported inappropriate authorship though the actual rates are much higher. The earlier reported \"conscious\" ratings indicated that the probability of any third and subsequent coathors being inappropriate was 23% for the APS guideline, 67% for the tighter guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors', or 59% if the guideline was \"direct contribu- tions to scientific discovery or invention\"; the currently reported subconscious rates varies between 94 and 97%.","PeriodicalId":352758,"journal":{"name":"The Open Ethics Journal","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Open Ethics Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/1874761200802010018","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the largest and most detailed survey on the ethics of scientific coauthorship to date, members of the Ameri- can Physical Society (APS) were asked to judge the number of appropriate coauthors on their last published papers in three different ways (1). The papers reported on by the respondents were papers in which the respondents' authorship was more involved than chance would dictate. From this discrepancy it is possible to infer "subconscious" rates of inappropri- ate authorship. The shapes of the curves of these subconscious rates are very similar to the curves of the consciously re- ported inappropriate authorship though the actual rates are much higher. The earlier reported "conscious" ratings indicated that the probability of any third and subsequent coathors being inappropriate was 23% for the APS guideline, 67% for the tighter guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors', or 59% if the guideline was "direct contribu- tions to scientific discovery or invention"; the currently reported subconscious rates varies between 94 and 97%.
物理学中不恰当合作的潜意识评级
在一项迄今为止规模最大、最详细的关于科学合著者伦理的调查中,美国物理学会(APS)的成员被要求以三种不同的方式判断他们最近发表的论文中合适的合著者的数量(1)。被调查者报告的论文中,被调查者的作者身份比偶然决定的要重要得多。从这种差异中,我们可以推断出“潜意识”中不恰当作者的比例。这些潜意识比例曲线的形状与有意识报告的不恰当作者的曲线非常相似,尽管实际比例要高得多。先前报告的“有意识”评级表明,对于APS指南,任何第三和后续作者不适当的概率为23%,对于国际医学杂志编辑委员会的更严格的指南为67%,如果指南是“对科学发现或发明的直接贡献”,则为59%;目前报告的潜意识比率在94%到97%之间。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信