作者资格标准和透明度做法的现代化,促进团队科学的公开和公平。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Zhicheng Lin
{"title":"作者资格标准和透明度做法的现代化,促进团队科学的公开和公平。","authors":"Zhicheng Lin","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2024.2405041","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional \"substantial contributions\" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.<b>Methods and results:</b> To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of \"substantial contributions\" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of \"sufficient contributions,\" as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration (\"team science\" or \"group science\"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.<b>Conclusions:</b> Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-24"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science.\",\"authors\":\"Zhicheng Lin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2024.2405041\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional \\\"substantial contributions\\\" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.<b>Methods and results:</b> To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of \\\"substantial contributions\\\" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of \\\"sufficient contributions,\\\" as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration (\\\"team science\\\" or \\\"group science\\\"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.<b>Conclusions:</b> Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-24\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2405041\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2024.2405041","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:作者身份膨胀的迅速加速--合作研究中每篇论文的作者人数不断增加--使得传统的作者身份 "实质性贡献 "标准和作者贡献缺乏透明度的问题日益突出:为了应对这些挑战,我们提出了一种新的作者资格标准,用更灵活的、针对具体项目的 "充分贡献 "标准取代僵化的 "实质性贡献 "要求。这一变化更准确地反映和适应了科学合作("团队科学 "或 "群体科学")的扩散。通过整合 "贡献者角色分类标准"(CRediT)和 "方法报告与透明度首字母缩写"(MeRIT)系统,扩大了作者角色的范围和粒度。它要求在文中记录谁做了什么(例如,谁收集了什么数据),并超越了典型的二元(全有或全无)分类,为每个作者的每个角色分配了一个分级贡献级别。贡献可以用一个序数标尺来表示--既可以是粗略的(如主要、同等和支持),也可以是精细的(如最小、轻微、中等、实质性、广泛和完全)。为支持新方法的实施,我们提供了一个作者政策模板:结论:采用按比例、按角色分配学分和明确记录贡献的方法,可以营造一个更加透明、公平和值得信赖的科学环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Modernizing authorship criteria and transparency practices to facilitate open and equitable team science.

Background: The rapid acceleration of authorship inflation-increasing numbers of authors per publication in collaborative research-has rendered the traditional "substantial contributions" criterion for authorship and the lack of transparency in author contributions increasingly problematic.Methods and results: To address these challenges, a revamped approach to authorship is proposed, replacing the rigid requirement of "substantial contributions" with a more flexible, project-specific criterion of "sufficient contributions," as determined and justified by the authors for each project. This change more accurately reflects and accommodates the proliferation of scientific collaboration ("team science" or "group science"). It broadens the scope and granularity of roles deserving of authorship by integrating the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Method Reporting with Initials for Transparency (MeRIT) systems. It mandates in-text documentation of who did what (e.g., who collected what data) and moves beyond the typical binary (all-or-none) classification by assigning a gradated contribution level to each author for each role. Contributions can be denoted using an ordinal scale-either coarse (e.g., lead, equal, and supporting) or fine-grained (e.g., minimal, slight, moderate, substantial, extensive, and full). To support the implementation of the revamped approach, an authorship policy template is provided.Conclusions: Adopting proportional, role-specific credit allocation and explicit documentation of contributions fosters a more transparent, equitable, and trustworthy scientific environment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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