Suppr超能文献

阐明中级作者的贡献,以减少科学出版中的滥用现象,并评估 SJR 生物化学和药理学顶级期刊的作者标准。

Clarifying middle authorship contributions to reduce abuses in science publishing and assessment of top-ranked SJR biochemistry and pharmacology journals' authorship criteria.

机构信息

Bioethics Program, FLACSO Argentina, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Science Norms Democracy, UMR 8011, Sorbonne Université, Paris, France.

出版信息

Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2024 Dec;397(12):10215-10221. doi: 10.1007/s00210-024-03277-3. Epub 2024 Jul 10.

Abstract

So-called "middle authors," being neither the first, last, nor corresponding author of an academic paper, have made increasing relative contributions to academic scholarship over recent decades. No work has specifically and explicitly addressed the roles, rights, and responsibilities of middle authors, an authorship position which we believe is particularly vulnerable to abuse via growing phenomena such as paper mills. Responsible middle authorship requires transparent declarations of intellectual and other scientific contributions that journals can and should require of co-authors and established guidelines and criteria to achieve this already exist (ICMJE/CRediT). Although publishers, editors, and authors need to collectively uphold a situation of shared responsibility for appropriate co-authorship, current models have failed science since verification of authorship is impossible, except through blind trust in authors' statements. During the retraction of a paper, while the opinion of individual co-authors might be noted in a retraction notice, the retraction itself practically erases the relevance of co-author contributions and position/status (first, leading, senior, last, co-corresponding, etc.). Paper mills may have successfully proliferated because individual authors' roles and responsibilities are not tangibly verifiable and are thus indiscernible. We draw on a historical example of manipulated research to argue that authors and editors should publish publicly available, traceable contributions to the intellectual content of an article-both classical authorship or technical contributions-to maximize both visibility of individual contributions and accountability. To make our article practically more relevant to this journal's readership, we reviewed the top 50 Q1 journals in the fields of biochemistry and pharmacology, as ranked by the SJR, to appreciate which journals adopted the ICMJE or CRediT schools of authorship contribution, finding significant variation in adhesion to ICMJE guidelines nor the CRediT criteria and wording of author guidelines.

摘要

所谓的“中间作者”,既不是学术论文的第一作者、最后作者或通讯作者,在过去几十年中对学术研究的贡献也越来越大。没有任何一项工作专门明确地探讨了中间作者的角色、权利和责任,而这种作者身份特别容易受到诸如论文工厂等日益增多的现象的滥用。负责任的中间作者身份需要透明地声明对学术和其他科学的贡献,期刊可以而且应该要求共同作者做到这一点,并且已经存在实现这一目标的既定准则和标准(ICMJE/CRediT)。尽管出版商、编辑和作者需要共同维护适当共同作者身份的共同责任,但当前的模式对科学造成了失败,因为除了盲目信任作者的陈述外,不可能验证作者身份。在论文撤回期间,虽然个别共同作者的意见可能会在撤回通知中提到,但撤回本身实际上抹去了共同作者贡献的相关性和地位/身份(第一作者、主要作者、资深作者、最后作者、共同通讯作者等)。论文工厂之所以能够成功扩张,是因为单个作者的角色和责任无法进行有形的验证,因此难以识别。我们借鉴了一个被操纵的研究案例,来论证作者和编辑应该公开发表对文章的知识内容的可追溯的贡献,包括传统的作者身份或技术贡献,以最大限度地提高个人贡献的可见度和问责制。为了使我们的文章更切合本期刊读者的实际情况,我们对 SJR 排名前 50 的生物化学和药理学领域的 Q1 期刊进行了回顾,以了解哪些期刊采用了 ICMJE 或 CRediT 的作者贡献准则,发现对 ICMJE 准则的遵守情况以及对 CRediT 准则的措辞和作者准则存在显著差异。

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