Originality, novelty and priority: three words to reckon with in scientific publishing.
作者信息
Morgan P P
出版信息
Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Jan 1;132(1):8-9.
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
Originality, novelty and priority: three words to reckon with in scientific publishing.原创性、新颖性和优先权：科学出版中需要考虑的三个要素。
Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Jan 1;132(1):8-9.
2
Figureheads, ghost-writers and pseudonymous quant bloggers: the recent evolution of authorship in science publishing.傀儡作者、代笔人和匿名量化博主：科学出版中作者身份的近期演变。
Med Hypotheses. 2008 Oct;71(4):475-80. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2008.06.023. Epub 2008 Aug 27.
3
[The concept of "authorship" in scientific journals. Letter].
Rev Neurol. 1997 Feb;25(138):314.
4
[Authorship of scientific articles].[科学文章的作者身份]
Acta Otorrinolaringol Esp. 2007 Aug-Sep;58(7):281-3.
5
Inappropriate authorship in collaborative science research.合作科研中的不当署名问题。
Public Aff Q. 1996 Oct;10(4):379-93.
6
Scientific misconduct and editorial and peer review processes.科研不端行为以及编辑和同行评审过程。
J Higher Educ. 1994 May-Jun;65(3):298-309.
7
A wiki for the life sciences where authorship matters.一个重视作者身份的生命科学维基网站。
Nat Genet. 2008 Sep;40(9):1047-51. doi: 10.1038/ng.f.217.
8
Trading scientific freedom.交易科学自由。
Nat Med. 2004 Feb;10(2):107. doi: 10.1038/nm0204-107a.
9
[Scientometrics and publishing in Hungarian medical science. Ethical and technical issues].[匈牙利医学科学中的科学计量学与出版。伦理与技术问题]
Orv Hetil. 2001 Nov 11;142(45):2493-9.
10
Out of the way: how the next copyright revolution can help the next scientific revolution.让道：下一场版权革命如何助力下一场科学革命。
PLoS Biol. 2003 Oct;1(1):E9. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.0000009. Epub 2003 Oct 13.
引用本文的文献
1
Quantifying Conceptual Novelty in the Biomedical Literature.量化生物医学文献中的概念新颖性。
Dlib Mag. 2016 Sep-Oct;22(9-10). doi: 10.1045/september2016-mishra.
2
Why case reports?为什么要有病例报告？
CMAJ. 1985 Sep 1;133(5):353.
本文引用的文献
1
Banting, insulin and the question of simultaneous discovery.班廷、胰岛素与同时发现的问题。
Queens Q. 1982;89(2):260-73.
Zotero 插件