“大团队”科学促使我们重新思考作者身份。 - Suppr | 超能文献

相似文献

1

'Big team' science challenges us to reconsider authorship.“大团队”科学促使我们重新思考作者身份。

Nat Hum Behav. 2023 May;7(5):665-667. doi: 10.1038/s41562-023-01572-2.

2

Hyperauthorship: the publishing challenges for 'big team' science.超作者身份：“大团队”科学面临的出版挑战。

Nature. 2023 Mar;615(7950):175-177. doi: 10.1038/d41586-023-00575-3.

3

Managing opportunities and challenges of co-authorship.应对共同署名的机遇与挑战。

West J Nurs Res. 2015 Feb;37(2):134-63. doi: 10.1177/0193945914532722. Epub 2014 Apr 29.

4

Dynamics of Team Science and Authorship in Academic Surgery.

J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2021 May;79(5):960-961. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2021.01.007. Epub 2021 Jan 17.

5

Authorship Ethics in the Era of Team Science.团队科学时代的作者署名伦理

Oncol Nurs Forum. 2017 Nov 1;44(6):655-657. doi: 10.1188/17.ONF.655-657.

6

Authorship controversies in academic publication: implications for science and the research environment.学术出版中的作者身份争议：对科学和研究环境的影响。

Indian J Med Ethics. 2022 Jul-Sep;VII(3):179-183. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2022.051.

7

The Value of Vagueness in the Politics of Authorship.作者身份政治中模糊性的价值。

J Bioeth Inq. 2017 Mar;14(1):13-15. doi: 10.1007/s11673-016-9768-3. Epub 2016 Dec 30.

8

Authorship grids: Practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publication.作者身份网格：促进合作与规范发表的实用工具。

Res Nurs Health. 2018 Apr;41(2):195-208. doi: 10.1002/nur.21856.

9

Authorship for scientific papers: the new challenges.科学论文的作者身份：新挑战

Rev Bras Cir Cardiovasc. 2010 Oct-Dec;25(4):559-67. doi: 10.1590/s0102-76382010000400021.

10

The challenges for scientific publishing, 60 years on.60年后科学出版面临的挑战。

J Neurochem. 2016 Oct;139 Suppl 2:280-287. doi: 10.1111/jnc.13550. Epub 2016 Mar 21.

引用本文的文献

1

Big team science reveals promises and limitations of machine learning efforts to model physiological markers of affective experience.大型团队科学揭示了机器学习在对情感体验的生理指标进行建模方面的前景与局限。

R Soc Open Sci. 2025 Jun 25;12(6):241778. doi: 10.1098/rsos.241778. eCollection 2025 Jun.

2

The assessment of physiotherapy practice is a robust measure of entry-level physiotherapy standards: Reliability and validity evidence from a large, representative sample.物理治疗实践评估是对入门级物理治疗标准的有力衡量：来自大型代表性样本的信度和效度证据。

PLoS One. 2025 Apr 18;20(4):e0321397. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321397. eCollection 2025.

3

本文引用的文献

1

A multi-lab test of the facial feedback hypothesis by the Many Smiles Collaboration.多微笑合作组织对面部反馈假说的多实验室测试。

Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Dec;6(12):1731-1742. doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01458-9. Epub 2022 Oct 20.

2

A community-sourced glossary of open scholarship terms.一份由社区提供的开放学术术语词汇表。

Nat Hum Behav. 2022 Mar;6(3):312-318. doi: 10.1038/s41562-021-01269-4.

3

Build up big-team science.建立大型团队科学。