230 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2016
    1. Foucault,1977,p.125

      Authorship bibliography

    2. Manguel(1997,pp.182–183)

      Authorship bibliography

    3. Thisarticle(a)beginswithabrief,historicaloverviewofscholarlypublishing,focusingontheroleoftheauthorandtheconstitutionoftrustinscientificcommunication;(b)offersanimpressionisticsurveyandanalysisofrecentdevelop-mentsinthebiomedicalliterature;(c)explorestheextenttowhichdeviantpublishingpracticesinbiomedicalpublishingareafunctionofsociocognitiveandstructuralcharacteris-ticsofthedisciplinebycomparingbiomedicinewithhighenergyphysics,theonlyotherfieldwhichappearstoexhibitcomparablehyperauthorshiptendencies;and(d)assessestheextenttowhichcurrenttrendsinbiomedicalcommuni-cationmaybeaharbingerofdevelopmentsinotherdisci-plines

      Great overview of what is going to happen in article:

      1. History of authorship
      2. Survey of state of biomedicine
      3. "extent to which deviant publishing practices in biomedical publishing are a function of sociocognitive and structural characteris-tics of the discipline by comparing biomedicine with high energy physics, the only other field which appears to exhibit comparable hyperauthorship tendencies"
      4. Assess extent to which biomedical trends may foreshadow trends in other fields.
    4. aproposaltoreplaceauthorsentirelywithlistsofcontributors(Rennie,Yank,&Eman-uel,1997)

      Bibliography on attempt to replace authorship with credit

    5. thecentralissueisnotjustoneofmultipleauthorship,buttointroduceaneologismofhyperauthorship—

      The central issue is hyperauthorship

    6. scaleofthephenomenonandassociatedethicalabuseshaveprovedtobesingularlyproblematicinthebiomedicaldo-main(e.g.,Houston&Moher,1996

      Bibliography on how medical area is where ethical abuses have occurred.

    7. Inthebiomedicalresearchcommunity,multipleauthorshiphasincreasedtosuchanextentthatthetrustworthinessofthescientificcom-municationsystemhasbeencalledintoquestion.Doc-umentedabuses,suchashonorificauthorship,havese-riousimplicationsintermsoftheacknowledgmentofauthority,allocationofcredit,andassigningofaccount-ability.Withinthebiomedicalworldithasbeenproposedthatauthorsbereplacedbylistsofcontributors(theradicalmodel),whosespecificinputstoagivenstudywouldberecordedunambiguously.Thewiderimplica-tionsofthe‘hyperauthorship’phenomenonforscholarlypublicationareconsidered.

      Discussion of how this is a problem in Biomedicine (as King, Christopher. 2012. “Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward - ScienceWatch Newsletter.” Science Watch Newsletter, July. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/.) notes, this changed later in the decade to physics.

      Discusses "contributor" model.

    8. lphabetization through weightedlisting to reverse seniority (e.g., Spiegel & Keith-Spiegel,1970; Riesenberg & Lundberg, 1990).

      bibliography on authorship ranking and practices

    1. Following the 2004 report on pravastatin and a 2005 paper on tuberculosis among European patients receiving anti-HIV therapy (a report with “only” 859 authors), high-energy physics subsequently moved in to displace biomedicine in securing the upper tiers of science’s most mega-authored papers. The physics upsurge was striking. In 2010, Thomson Reuters indexed 16 papers in the main field of Physics with more than 1,000 authors each; in 2011, the figure was 120 such papers, with 44 Physics papers listing more than 3,000 authors.

      Sudden rise of physics (replacing biomedicine) as source of hyperauthorship.

    2. For a more specific look at “hyperauthored” papers, Graph 3 covers 1992 through 2011 and tracks each year’s single paper with the highest author count. In the graph, the line sticks fairly close to the 500-author mark for the first decade, with no single paper exceeding 1,000 authors until 2004, when the threshold was resoundingly surpassed. As ScienceWatch reported five years ago, the paper in question was a study from Circulation Journal examining the efficacy of pravastatin in Japanese subjects with mildly elevated cholesterol levels; the published report includes more than 2,400 authors.

      Great graph: tracks the largest authorship each year.

    3. Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward

      King, Christopher. 2012. “Multiauthor Papers: Onward and Upward - ScienceWatch Newsletter.” Science Watch Newsletter, July. http://archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/.

    4. n fact, all the groupings in Graph 1 display a notable surge from 2010 onward. This is particularly striking on the bottom-most line denoting 1,000 or more authors. Aside from a few blips through 2009, this line was flat—until 2010, when Thomson Reuters indexed 17 papers with author counts above 1,000. The next year, 2011, this number increased nearly 10-fold, with more than 140 papers registering above the 1,000-author mark.

      After a flattening in authorship numbers in the mid oughts, thee was a "notable" surge in hyperauthorship after 2010, driven in part by physics.

      in 2007, 1000 authors didn't exist.

    1. Observation of the rare Bs0 →µ+µ− decay from the combined analysis of CMS and LHCb data

      Collaboration, C. M. S., and LHCb Collaboration. 2015. “Observation of the Rare Bs0 →µ+µ− Decay from the Combined Analysis of CMS and LHCb Data.” Nature 522 (7554): 68–72. doi:10.1038/nature14474.

      This is the physics paper where Nature "couldn't" publish the entire author list in the print edition.

      Note that the actual authorship is to the collaborations.

    1. Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in pp<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><mi>p</mi><mi>p</mi></math> Collisions at s√=7<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><msqrt><mi>s</mi></msqrt><mo>=</mo><mn>7</mn></math> and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments

      ATLAS Collaboration, CMS Collaboration, G. Aad, B. Abbott, J. Abdallah, O. Abdinov, R. Aben, et al. 2015. “Combined Measurement of the Higgs Boson Mass in $pp$ Collisions at $\sqrt{s}=7$ and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments.” Physical Review Letters 114 (19): 191803. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803.

      This is the 5000+ author physics paper

      Note a) that they actually credit the authorship to the collaborations on the byline; and b) that they have two plus pages of secondary affiliations!

    1. Robert Garisto, an editor of Physical Review Letters, says that publishing the paper presented challenges above and beyond the already Sisyphean task of dealing with teams that have thousands of members. “The biggest problem was merging the author lists from two collaborations with their own slightly different styles,” Garisto says. “I was impressed at how well the pair of huge collaborations worked together in responding to referee and editorial comments,” he adds.

      The biggest problem was merging the author lists

    2. Physics paper sets record with more than 5,000 authors

      Castelvecchi, Davide. 2015. “Physics Paper Sets Record with More than 5,000 Authors.” Nature, May. doi:10.1038/nature.2015.17567.

      This piece has references to several of the famous hyperauthor papers, including the Nature paper where there were too many to credit in the paper edition.

    1. Research Biologist Coins Term 'Kilo-Author' For Scientific Journal Articles

      “Research Biologist Coins Term ‘Kilo-Author’ For Scientific Journal Articles.” 2016. NPR.org. Accessed June 16. http://www.npr.org/2015/08/12/431959428/research-biologist-coins-term-kilo-author-for-scientific-journal-articles.

    2. Am I getting, you know, recognition, you know? So if you're one of a thousand in a paper, you still have a paper to your name versus somebody like myself, who - I write a lot of papers just on my own. And I do everything by myself, and, you know, we both end up with one paper. SIEGEL: Of course, when one sees a thousand authors credited for a single article, it's - you know, it's hard to imagine a thousand people agreeing on a birthday card not to mention a scientific article.

      confusion of economic reward and authorship: one author = lots of effort, many authors = little effort.

    3. Oh, yeah. It's certainly not as though - and you know that they didn't all contribute the same, right? It's not as though that everybody got five words and wrote five words out of the paper.

      On confusion of authorship and writing in science.

    1. The rise of mass authorship and fractional authorship: Do too many cooks spoil the broth?

      Kulkarni, Sneha. 2015. “The Rise of Mass Authorship and Fractional Authorship: Do Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth?” Editage Insights(13-10-2015), October. http://www.editage.com/insights/the-rise-of-mass-authorship-and-fractional-authorship-do-too-many-cooks-spoil-the-broth.

    2. are that an author should have made substantial contributions to the study as well as to drafting the work, and should be able to identify all co-authors on a study and their contribution.

      This is not the definition of authorship at the ICMJE!

    1. Earlier this year, a paper on rare particle decay published in Nature listed so many co-authors—about 2,700—that the journal announced it wouldn’t have room for them all in its print editions

      Nature said it didn't have room for all the authors in its print edition.

    2. His scientific renown is a tribute to alphabetical order

      cf. From Marusic, Ana, Lana Bosnjak, and Ana Jeroncic. 2011. “A Systematic Review of Research on the Meaning, Ethics and Practices of Authorship across Scholarly Disciplines.” PLoS ONE 6 (9). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477

    3. How Many Scientists Does It Take to Write a Paper? Apparently, Thousands

      Hotz, Robert Lee. 2015. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Write a Paper? Apparently, Thousands.” Wall Street Journal, August 10, sec. Page One. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-scientists-does-it-take-to-write-a-paper-apparently-thousands-1439169200.

    1. calling this "inflation" is really begging the question. It can be that simply science has got bigger and there are more people bearing responsibility.

    2. Hotz, Robert Lee. 2015. “How Many Scientists Does It Take to Write a Paper? Apparently, Thousands.” Wall Street Journal, August 10, sec. Page One. http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-many-scientists-does-it-take-to-write-a-paper-apparently-thousands-1439169200.

  2. Feb 2014
    1. The “romantic conception of authorship” mentioned earlier as a formative trend of the rights - based theory of intellectual property is evident in the first pe rspective: t he notion that ideas are individual achievements and of indeterminate origin (not reliant on a process of building) (Fisher, 1999, Sect. II. B).
    2. Fisher points out that the rights - based, non - utilitarian theory is greatly influenced by two concepts: (1) the western ideology of property from Locke (that people are entitled to own the fruits of their labors, and should be rewarded in proportion to their contributions); and (2) the “romantic conception of authorship” of the divinely inspired individual genius or artist (1999, Sect. II. B).

      The first is the soul of the rights-based theory

    1. I t i s t h i s b e d r o c k p r i n c i p l e o f c o p y r i g h t t h a t m a n d a t e s t h e l a w ' s s e e m i n g l y d i s p a r a t e t r e a t m e n t o f f a c t s a n d f a c t u a l c o m p i l a t i o n s . " N o o n e m a y c l a i m o r i g i n a l i t y a s t o f a c t s . " I d . , § 2 . 1 1 [ A ] , p . 2 - 1 5 7 . T h i s i s b e c a u s e f a c t s d o n o t o w e t h e i r o r i g i n t o a n a c t o f a u t h o r s h i p . T h e d i s t i n c t i o n i s o n e b e t w e e n c r e a t i o n a n d d i s c o v e r y : T h e f i r s t p e r s o n t o f i n d a n d r e p o r t a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t h a s n o t c r e a t e d t h e f a c t ; h e o r s h e h a s m e r e l y d i s c o v e r e d i t s e x i s t e n c e . T o b o r r o w f r o m B u r r o w - G i l e s , o n e w h o d i s c o v e r s a f a c t i s n o t i t s " m a k e r " o r " o r i g i n a t o r . " 1 1 1 U . S . , a t 5 8 . " T h e d i s c o v e r e r m e r e l y f i n d s a n d r e c o r d s . " N i m m e r § 2 . 0 3 [ E ] .

      No one may claim originality to facts because facts do not owe their origin to an act of authorship. The distinction is one between creation vs discovery.

  3. Oct 2013

      adhering to personal truth and personal experience, authorship, is more persuasive. Walking your talk, and talking your walk