Suppr超能文献

在 ICMJE 模型中,如何验证作者的贡献?

How are authors' contributions verified in the ICMJE model?

机构信息

, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken, 761-0799, Japan.

出版信息

Plant Cell Rep. 2023 Sep;42(9):1529-1530. doi: 10.1007/s00299-023-03022-9. Epub 2023 Apr 27.

Abstract

A recent editorial in Plant Cell Reports reaffirms what has been known for years, namely, that it follows the four ICMJE clauses of authorship. That editorial even provides a "perfect" model contribution statement. In this letter, I argue that in reality and in practice, authorship delimitations are not that clear-cut, nor are all contributions equal or equally weighted. More importantly, I opine that no matter how eloquently an author contribution statement is written, editors have no way to verify the veracity of those claims. In essence, absent authorship contribution verification, the ICMJE guidelines are practically useless. The responsibility for verification, even to determine authorship associated with papermills or the "ghost" contribution of text by AI like ChatGPT, lies entirely with editors and publishers. Although an unpopular meme, there is need for academic publishing to return to a state of no blind trust.

摘要

最近在《植物细胞报告》上的一篇社论重申了多年来人们所熟知的事实,即它遵循了国际医学期刊编辑委员会的四项作者署名准则。该社论甚至提供了一个“完美”的作者贡献声明范例。在这封信中,我认为,实际上和实践中,作者的界定并不那么明确,也不是所有的贡献都平等或同等重要。更重要的是,我认为,无论作者的贡献声明写得多么雄辩,编辑都无法验证这些声明的真实性。从本质上讲,没有作者贡献的验证,国际医学期刊编辑委员会的准则实际上是毫无用处的。验证的责任,甚至是确定与论文工厂或像 ChatGPT 这样的人工智能的“幽灵”文本贡献相关的作者身份,完全落在编辑和出版商身上。虽然这是一个不受欢迎的模因,但学术出版需要回归到没有盲目信任的状态。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验