List of authors in scholarly publications: Sequence and what value?

J. Makama
{"title":"List of authors in scholarly publications: Sequence and what value?","authors":"J. Makama","doi":"10.4103/1595-1103.166881","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Multidisciplinary collaborations and active participation of multiple authors in scientific studies and publications are being increasingly encouraged. This may be so because multi-author publications, presumably, have been considered to lend greater credibility, reliability, greater support, and enhance the integrity of the work as it will often reflect a pool of experiences and contributions from all the authors. When the article is finally published in a scientific journal, many other stakeholders’ interests will become obvious such as is found in the work often done by the appointment and promotion committee in real academic circles, where credits are now awarded to each author for the purpose of promotion, grant allocation, and assigning supervision by grant awarding firms are just but a few examples.[1] In these instances, surely, the stakeholders will pick interest in the order or sequence in which the list of authors names appear in the work. At this point, the question will then arise whether the list of authors’ names in scholarly publications has any particular sequence or value? If it does, what is the interpretation of the sequence? What value does it has and how do you quantify the value? These could be some of the questions that will follow particularly during assessment of the roles or contributions made by various authors in multi-authored publications. This editorial is intended to highlight the interpretation of the order or sequence of list of authors names in scholarly publications and attempt to give a summary of the guidelines that have been in use for the evaluation of the roles or contributions made by various authors. In scientific and scholarly publications, the roles of the first author has been wrongly misconstrue and thought that the person that has the greatest contribution to the work should be first author. With this misconception, that has been fairly straightforward in identifying such a role in any multi-author publication. The major problem is often with the remaining names, which factors guide the order in which the remaining names are arranged? As at the moment, no universally accepted order is practiced among scholars. However, the following options and guidelines have been noted to be in place or use for various reasons.","PeriodicalId":19188,"journal":{"name":"Nigerian Journal of Surgical Research","volume":"103 1","pages":"1 - 2"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nigerian Journal of Surgical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/1595-1103.166881","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

Multidisciplinary collaborations and active participation of multiple authors in scientific studies and publications are being increasingly encouraged. This may be so because multi-author publications, presumably, have been considered to lend greater credibility, reliability, greater support, and enhance the integrity of the work as it will often reflect a pool of experiences and contributions from all the authors. When the article is finally published in a scientific journal, many other stakeholders’ interests will become obvious such as is found in the work often done by the appointment and promotion committee in real academic circles, where credits are now awarded to each author for the purpose of promotion, grant allocation, and assigning supervision by grant awarding firms are just but a few examples.[1] In these instances, surely, the stakeholders will pick interest in the order or sequence in which the list of authors names appear in the work. At this point, the question will then arise whether the list of authors’ names in scholarly publications has any particular sequence or value? If it does, what is the interpretation of the sequence? What value does it has and how do you quantify the value? These could be some of the questions that will follow particularly during assessment of the roles or contributions made by various authors in multi-authored publications. This editorial is intended to highlight the interpretation of the order or sequence of list of authors names in scholarly publications and attempt to give a summary of the guidelines that have been in use for the evaluation of the roles or contributions made by various authors. In scientific and scholarly publications, the roles of the first author has been wrongly misconstrue and thought that the person that has the greatest contribution to the work should be first author. With this misconception, that has been fairly straightforward in identifying such a role in any multi-author publication. The major problem is often with the remaining names, which factors guide the order in which the remaining names are arranged? As at the moment, no universally accepted order is practiced among scholars. However, the following options and guidelines have been noted to be in place or use for various reasons.
学术出版物的作者名单:顺序和价值?
多学科合作和多作者积极参与科学研究和出版物正日益受到鼓励。这可能是因为多作者出版物被认为提供了更高的可信度、可靠性、更大的支持,并提高了工作的完整性,因为它通常反映了所有作者的经验和贡献。当文章最终在科学期刊上发表时,许多其他利益相关者的利益将变得明显,例如在真正的学术界中,任命和晋升委员会经常做的工作,现在将学分授予每个作者,以促进,拨款分配,并由资助公司进行监督,这只是其中的几个例子在这些情况下,涉众肯定会根据作者姓名列表在作品中出现的顺序或顺序来选择兴趣。在这一点上,问题将出现在学术出版物的作者名单是否有任何特定的顺序或价值?如果是这样,对序列的解释是什么?它有什么价值,你如何量化它的价值?这些可能是一些问题,特别是在评估多作者出版物中不同作者的角色或贡献时。这篇社论的目的是强调对学术出版物中作者名单的顺序或顺序的解释,并试图对用于评价各种作者的作用或贡献的准则进行总结。在科学和学术出版物中,第一作者的角色被错误地误解了,认为对工作贡献最大的人应该是第一作者。有了这种误解,在任何多作者出版物中识别这样的角色都是相当简单的。主要的问题往往是剩下的名字,哪些因素指导剩下的名字排列的顺序?就目前而言,学者之间没有普遍接受的秩序。然而,由于各种原因,以下选项和指导方针已被注意到。
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信