Institute of Ethics, School of Theology, Philosophy and Music, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland.
Account Res. 2020 Feb;27(2):80-98. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2020.1721288. Epub 2020 Jan 29.
The practice of assigning authorship for a scientific publication tends to raise two normative questions: 1) "who should be credited as an author?"; 2) "who should not be credited as an author but should still be acknowledged?". With the publication of the revised version of The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECCRI), standard answers to these questions have been called into question. This article examines the ways in which the ECCRI approaches these two questions and compares these approaches to standard definitions of "authorship" and "acknowledgment" in guidelines issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME). In light of two scenarios and the problems posed by these kinds of "real-world" examples, we recommend specific revisions to the content of the ECCRI in order not only to provide a more detailed account of the tasks deserving of acknowledgment, but to improve the Code's current definition of authorship.
1）“谁应被视为作者？”；2）“谁不应被视为作者，但仍应得到认可？”。随着《欧洲研究诚信行为准则》（ECCRI）修订版的发布，这些问题的标准答案受到了质疑。本文探讨了 ECCRI 处理这两个问题的方法，并将这些方法与国际医学期刊编辑委员会（ICMJE）和世界医学编辑协会（WAME）发布的指南中“作者”和“认可”的标准定义进行了比较。根据两种情况以及这些“现实世界”例子所带来的问题，我们建议对 ECCRI 的内容进行具体修订，不仅要更详细地说明值得认可的任务，还要改进该准则目前对作者身份的定义。
