J Med Ethics. 2013 Aug;39(8):514. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2012-100939. Epub 2012 Sep 6.
Kovacs argues that honorary authorship and regarding each co-author of multi-authored papers as if they were sole authors when the performance of researchers is being evaluated by their publications mean that we should require authors to identify what proportion of each publication should be attributed to each co-author. Even if such attributions could be made reliably, such a change should not be made. Contributions to authorship cannot be validly quantified, and the relative merits of different publications are also neither equal nor validly quantifiable. Research administrators need to recognise that whatever criteria they adopt to evaluate the performance of researchers, researchers will find a way to game the system in order to maximise their personal benefit.
科瓦克斯认为，在评估研究人员的表现时，将荣誉作者和将多作者论文的每一位共同作者视为唯一作者，以及要求作者确定每篇出版物应归因于每位共同作者的比例，这意味着我们应该要求作者确定每篇出版物应归因于每位共同作者的比例。即使可以可靠地做出这样的归因，也不应该做出这样的改变。对作者身份的贡献不能被有效地量化，不同出版物的相对价值也不相等，也不能被有效地量化。研究管理人员需要认识到，无论他们采用什么标准来评估研究人员的表现，研究人员都会找到一种方法来操纵系统，以最大限度地提高他们的个人利益。
