To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Author and authorship.
Journal articles on the topic 'Author and authorship'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Author and authorship.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Bhagat, Vijay. "Women Authorship of Scholarly Publications on COVID-19: Leadership Analysis." Feminist Research 4, no. 1 (2020): 7–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.21523/gcj2.20010102.
Full textAbstract:
Women are continuously underrepresented in authorship of scholarly publications. 1) The authorship positions as first -, last and corresponding author, and 2) performance as citations and Altmetric records of published papers are indicators of leadership qualities of the authors. Comparative leadership qualities of women authors were calculated using odds ratios. The proportion analysis was performed to get comparative contributions and per article citations and Altmetric records to understand the quality of publications. Information about scholarly publications was downloaded from Dimensions and data about names and gender was collected from different online sources. Author’s gender was detected based on first name. The proportions of women authorship as first, last and corresponding author were calculated to understand the share of women in scholarly publications. Women show underrepresentation in authorship of scholarly publications on COVID-19. Female-to-male odds ratio was calculated for these authorships and the performance was calculated of research papers authored by women as first and last authors. Female-to-male odds ratios calculated for 1) women authorships as first author, 2) citations, and 3) Altmetric tracking records for articles authored by women as first author were more than 1. Further, 1) women authorship as last- and corresponding authors and 2) citations and Altmetric tracking records for articles authored women as last author show calculated value were less than 1. All these ratios were considered as indicators of women leadership in scholarly publications on COVID-19. Leadership index was calculated to understand the level of women leadership in this field. Calculated leadership index for women (7.11) shows leadership qualities of women authors. Financial support provided was almost equal for research reported in women and men first authored papers. The field is very new; it is as active and challenging area of research for social justice and welfare society. The method and results reported in the paper is useful for preparation of research policies and monitoring the research projects, grants with feminist approach.
2
Lapeña, José Florencio F. "Authorship Controversies: Gift, Guest and Ghost Authorship." Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery 34, no. 1 (2019): 4–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.32412/pjohns.v34i1.957.
Full textAbstract:
Authorship, “the state or fact of being the writer of a book, article, or document, or the creator of a work of art,”1 derives from the word author, auctor, autour, autor “father, creator, one who brings about, one who makes or creates,” from Old French auctor, acteor “author, originator, creator, instigator,” directly from the Latin auctor “promoter, doer; responsible person, teacher,” literally “one who causes to grow.”2 It implies a creative privilege and responsibility that cannot be taken lightly. In the biomedical arena, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) “recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria: 1. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND 2. Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND 3. Final approval of the version to be published; AND 4. Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy and integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.”3
 
 Thus, all persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify as authors should be so listed.3 The first of these general principles means that all persons listed as authors should meet the four ICMJE criteria for authorship; the second principle means that all those who meet the four ICMJE criteria for authorship should be listed as authors.3 The first part of the statement disqualifies honorific “gift” authors, complementary “guest” authors, and anonymous “ghost” authors from being listed as authors. The second part ensures the listing of all those who qualify as authors, even if they are no longer part of the institution or group from which the work emanates (such as students who have graduated or residents and fellows who have completed their postgraduate training).
 
 Honorific or “gift” authorship takes place when a subordinate (or junior) person lists a superior (or senior) person as an author, even if that person did not meet the four ICMJE authorship criteria.4,5 Bestowing the gift on a Chief, Chair, Department Head, Director, Dean, or such other person is often done in gratitude, but carries an unspoken expectation that the favor will be returned in the future. It can also be bestowed under coercive conditions (that may overlap with those of guest authorship discussed next).4.5 It is unethical because the gifted person does not qualify for authorship when at most only acknowledgement is his or her due. In the extreme, such a person can be put in the uncomfortable and embarrassing situation of being unable to comment on the supposedly co-authored work when asked to do so. Moreover, the unqualified co-author(s) may actually attempt to wash their hands of any allegations of misconduct, claiming for example that the resident first author “plagiarized the material” or “fabricated or manipulated the data” but “I/we certainly had nothing to do with that” - - hence the fourth criterion for authorship came to be.3 Reviewers and Editors may suspect “gift” authorship when for instance, a resident listed as first author writes the paper in the first person, using the pronoun “I” instead of “we” and thanks the consultant co-author under the “acknowledgements” section. The suspicions are further reinforced when the concerned co-author(s) do not participate in, or contribute to revising the manuscript critically for important intellectual content during the review and editing process.
 
 Guest authorship takes place when influential or well-known individuals “lend” their name to a manuscript to boost its prestige, even though they had nothing to do with its creation.6,7 They may have been invited to do so by one or more of the actual authors, but they willingly agree, considering the arrangement mutually-beneficial. Thus, a student or resident may knowingly invite an adviser or consultant to be listed as co-author, even if the latter did not meet authorship criteria. The former perceives that having a known co-author increases the chances of a favorable review and publication; the latter effectively adds another publication to his or her curriculum vitae. It is not difficult to see how such symbioses may thrive in the “publish or perish” milieu of academe. Research advising alone, even if editing of the research paper was performed, do not qualify one for authorship (Cf. “gift” authorship). This is not to say that a research, thesis or dissertation adviser may not be listed as co-author – as long as he or she meets the 4 ICMJE criteria for authorship.3 A related misconduct is the practice by certain persons with seniority of insisting their names be listed first, even if more junior scholars did all the innovative thinking and research on a project. Indeed, the order of authorship can be a source of unhappiness and dispute. Authors be listed in the order of their contributions to the work – the one who contributed most is listed first, and the order of listing should be a joint decision of all co-authors at the start of the study (reviewed periodically).
 
 Ghost authorship usually pertains to paid professional writers who anonymously produce material that is officially attributed to another author.7,8 They may operate out of establishments that manufacture term papers, theses, and dissertations for the right price (such as the infamous C.M. Recto district in downtown Manila, now replaced by numerous online services). They may also be employed by the pharmaceutical industry to write promotional, favorable studies that will list well-known persons (professors, scientists, senior clinicians) as authors, often with consent and adequate compensation.8 Examples include “a professor at the University of Wisconsin” being paid “$1,500 in return for putting his name” on “an article on the ‘therapeutic effects’ of their diet pill Redux (dexfenfluramine),” that was “pulled from the market” a year later “as doctors began reporting heart-valve injuries in as many as one-third of patients taking the drug” and the drug “later linked to dozens of deaths.”9 Similar cases involved the “deadly drug” rofecoxib (Vioxx) “eventually blamed for some 60,000+ deaths,” that “was also linked to a number of shameful scandals relating to fraudulent studies and the use of ghostwriters to boost sales.”9 The costs involved are not meager; Parke-Davis paid “a medical education communication company (MECC) to write articles in support of the drug” Neurontin (gabapentin) “to the tune of $13,000 to $18,000 per article. In turn, MECC paid $1,000 each to friendly physicians and pharmacists to sign off as authors of the articles.”9 Pfizer (who acquired Neurontin form Parke-Davis) “was found guilty of illegally promoting off-label uses of Neurontin,” and “fined more than $142 million in damages.”9 Whether or not morbidities or mortalities ensue from the practice, both ghosts and beneficiary-authors should be held liable in such situations.
 
 Clearly, the practice of “gift,” “guest,” and “ghost” authorship should not be entertained by authors or tolerated by editors and reviewers. Authorship should be based on the ICMJE authorship criteria. Our editors and reviewers vigilantly strive to uphold and protect the rights and welfare of our authors and the integrity and soundness of their research. We call on all fellows, diplomates and residents in training to do the same.
3
North, Michael. "Authorship and Autography." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, no. 5 (2001): 1377–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/s0030812900113392.
Full textAbstract:
The Single Most Influential Contemporary Statement on Authorship is Still the Obituary that Roland Barthes pronounced over thirty years ago (Burke, Death 19). Partly by the stark extremity of its title, Barthes's essay “The Death of the Author” transformed New Critical distaste for the biographical into an ontological conviction about the status of language (Burke, Death 16) and in so doing made the dead author far more influential than living authors had been for some time. If authorship is now a subject of contention in the academy rather than a vulgar embarrassment, it is largely because of the way that Barthes inflated the issue in the very act of dismissing it. Though the idea that “it is language which speaks, not the author,” seems to demote the human subject (“Death” 143), it may also promote the written word, and it has been objected from the beginning, by Michel Foucault first of all, that the notion of écriture “has merely transposed the empirical characteristics of an author to a transcendental anonymity” (Foucault 120). Many later critics have agreed, and thus there have been a series of arguments, from the theoretical (Burke, Death) to the empirical (Stillinger), to the effect that the whole post-Saussurean turn exemplified by Barthes has not so much killed off the concept of the author as raised it to a higher plane of abstraction. But it may be that, approached from another angle, Barthes's essay will turn out to have its own relation to certain social and technological developments, and that these, in their turn, will help to situate the death of the author as a historical phenomenon.
4
North, Michael. "Authorship and Autography." PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, no. 5 (2001): 1377–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2001.116.5.1377.
Full textAbstract:
The Single Most Influential Contemporary Statement on Authorship is Still the Obituary that Roland Barthes pronounced over thirty years ago (Burke, Death 19). Partly by the stark extremity of its title, Barthes's essay “The Death of the Author” transformed New Critical distaste for the biographical into an ontological conviction about the status of language (Burke, Death 16) and in so doing made the dead author far more influential than living authors had been for some time. If authorship is now a subject of contention in the academy rather than a vulgar embarrassment, it is largely because of the way that Barthes inflated the issue in the very act of dismissing it. Though the idea that “it is language which speaks, not the author,” seems to demote the human subject (“Death” 143), it may also promote the written word, and it has been objected from the beginning, by Michel Foucault first of all, that the notion of écriture “has merely transposed the empirical characteristics of an author to a transcendental anonymity” (Foucault 120). Many later critics have agreed, and thus there have been a series of arguments, from the theoretical (Burke, Death) to the empirical (Stillinger), to the effect that the whole post-Saussurean turn exemplified by Barthes has not so much killed off the concept of the author as raised it to a higher plane of abstraction. But it may be that, approached from another angle, Barthes's essay will turn out to have its own relation to certain social and technological developments, and that these, in their turn, will help to situate the death of the author as a historical phenomenon.
5
Shah, Syed Ghulam Sarwar, Rinita Dam, Maria Julia Milano, et al. "Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis." BMJ Open 11, no. 3 (2021): e037935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037935.
Full textAbstract:
ObjectiveScientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research.DesignDescriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study.SettingNIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).DataData comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols).Main outcome measuresGender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors.ResultsPublications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors.ConclusionsAlthough the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals.
6
KNAPP, JEFFREY. "What Is a Co-Author?" Representations 89, no. 1 (2005): 1–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rep.2005.89.1.1.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACT In this essay, Jeffrey Knapp questions the recent critical orthodoxy that treats authorship as a menacing latecomer to the popular and collaborative Elizabethan stage. Demonstrating that a literary paradigm of single authorship dominated Elizabethan thinking about playwriting, Knapp presents Hamlet as Shakespeare's attempt to develop a more theatrically inflected model of authorship through the dramatization of his own hybrid professional identity as an actor and a playwright.
7
Vandana, KL. "Author and authorship: A dilemma." Journal of the International Clinical Dental Research Organization 7, no. 2 (2015): 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2231-0754.164345.
Full text
8
Marcelin, Rose A., Kristina M. Rabarison, and Monika K. Rabarison. "Co-Authorship Network Analysis of Prevention Research Centers: An Exploratory Study." Public Health Reports 134, no. 3 (2019): 249–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0033354919834589.
Full textAbstract:
Objective: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Prevention Research Centers (PRCs) collaborate on public health activities with community agencies and organizations. We evaluated these collaborations by studying the relationships between co-authors from the PRCs and community agencies that published at least 1 article together in the first year of the program. Methods: We identified all the authors of articles published by PRCs and collaborating members in peer-reviewed journals between September 2014 and September 2015 and constructed a network showing the links between and among all the authors. We characterized the network with 4 measures of social structure (network components, network density, average clustering coefficient, average distance) and 3 measures of individual author performances (degree-, betweenness-, and closeness-centrality). Results: The 413 articles had 1804 individual authors and 7995 co-authorship relationships (links) in 212 peer-reviewed journals. These authors and co-authors formed 44 separate, nonoverlapping groups (components). The largest “giant” component containing most of the links involved 66.3% (n = 1196) of the authors and 73.7% (n = 5889) of the links. We identified 136 “information brokers” (authors with high closeness centrality: those who have the shortest links to the most authors). Two authors with high betweenness centrality (who had the highest number of co-authors; 104 and 107) had the greatest ability to mediate co-authorships. Network density was low; only 0.5% of all potential co-authorships were realized (7995 actual co-authorship/1 628 110 potential co-authorships). Conclusion: Information brokers and co-authorship mediators should be encouraged to communicate more with each other to increase the number of collaborations between network members and, hence, the number of co-authorships.
9
Ramos-Rodriguez, Antonio-Rafael, María Paula Lechuga Sancho, and Salustiano Martínez-Fierro. "Authorship trends and collaboration patterns in hospitality and tourism research." International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 33, no. 4 (2021): 1344–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-09-2020-0981.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Analyze patterns of co-authorship in hospitality and tourism (H&T) research using bibliometric methods. The purpose of this paper is to answer three questions related to collaborative practices, the number of authors, the order of signatures and the role of the corresponding author. Design/methodology/approach The methodology is based on the bibliometric techniques of authorship analyzes published in leading H&T journals. Evaluative techniques provide longitudinal evidence of the evolution of some indicators of authors’ collaboration: the percentage of alphabetized authorships; the percentage of articles were the most relevant author signs in the first, middle or last position; and the position of the corresponding author in the by-line. Findings First, the collaborative nature of H&T research is confirmed; almost 80% of articles in the sample are co-authored. Second, over the past 30 years, the alphabetized signature model has been in decline in this field. Today, about 20% of articles indexed in JCR journals are signed alphabetically. Third, the first author’s placement is less consistent than that of the corresponding author. Practical implications This work provides relevant information on researchers’ authorship habits that may help evaluators assign credit and accountability and avoid malpractice in the authorial assignment. Originality/value This study explores the habits of researchers who collaborate to improve their productivity, impact and reputation. This is often linked to facilitating access to research funding and obtaining recognition from incentive systems. Yet, no research specifically examines trends in signature order or the corresponding author’s role in the H&T field.
10
Annesley, Thomas M. "Gender Authorship in the Field of Clinical Chemistry." Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine 5, no. 5 (2020): 869–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfaa096.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Background Gender underrepresentation has long existed in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. While there are upward trends in many areas of the life and health sciences, some disciplines are underrepresented in female author numbers, including first and corresponding authors. This study evaluated the participation by women as authors in the field of clinical chemistry. Methods Clinical Chemistry and The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine were selected for data collection. Data were classified into four categories: total number of authors for each article, number of female authors for each article, whether the first author was female, and whether the corresponding author was female. From these data, the percentages of female authors, articles with female first authors, articles with female corresponding authors, and articles where a female was either first or corresponding author were calculated. Results Both journals had ≥40% total female authorship, ≥45% female first author, and 64% female first or corresponding author. The 40% female author number matched the percentage of female doctoral degree, board certified clinical chemists, and the 39% female PhDs and MDs in academic clinical pathology departments. Compared with a selected group of science or medicine journals and gender reports, Clinical Chemistry and The Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine exceeded most journals and gender reports in female total authorship, first author, and corresponding author. Conclusions Women are well represented as authors in these two clinical chemistry journals. Both journals compare favorably against other scientific/medical journals. Female authorship in these two journals also parallels gender composition of the field of clinical chemistry.
11
Sundling, Pär. "The many hands of science." Aslib Journal of Information Management 69, no. 5 (2017): 591–606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ajim-01-2017-0012.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to identify the research contributions of authors and subauthors in order to outline how authorship, as opposed to acknowledgment, is awarded in the lab-based life sciences. Design/methodology/approach The work tasks described in author contribution statements and acknowledgments sections of research articles published in Nature Chemical Biology were classified according to a three-layered taxonomy: core layer; middle layer; outer layer. Findings Most authors are core or middle layer contributors, i.e. they perform at least one core or middle layer task. In contrast, most subauthors are outer layer contributors. While authors tend to be involved in several tasks, subauthors tend to make single contributions. The small but significant share of authors performing only outer layer tasks suggests a disconnect in author attribution between traditional author guidelines and scientific practice. A level of arbitrariness in whether a contributor is awarded authorship or subauthorship status is reported. However, this does not implicate first or last authorships. Research limitations/implications Data from one journal only are used. Transferability is limited to research in high impact journals in the lab-based life sciences. Originality/value The growth in scientific collaboration underlines the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the distinction between authorship and subauthorship in terms of the types of research contributions that they de facto represent. By utilizing hitherto unexplored data sources this study addresses a gap in the literature, and gives an important insight into the reward system of science.
12
Swarnkar, Pari, Vikram Sinha, Carole Spake, et al. "Women in Cosmetic Plastic Surgery: An Analysis of Female Authorship in Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Over the Last 10 Years." American Journal of Cosmetic Surgery 38, no. 3 (2021): 150–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0748806821991416.
Full textAbstract:
There is a significant gender gap in research conducted by women in plastic surgery. Previous work has not explored female authorship trends in cosmetic plastic surgery. We asked how authorship trends in cosmetic plastic surgery compare with those in plastic surgery overall, over the last 10 years. All the articles published in Journal of Plastic Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery (JPRAS), Facial Plastic Surgery and Aesthetic Medicine (JAMA facial plastics), and Aesthetic Surgery Journal. (ASJ) in 2009, 2014, and 2019 were retrieved. The gender of the first and last author was determined. In addition, article type and total number of authors were extracted. Chi-square or Fisher exact test were performed to determine differences between groups Linear regression models were used to investigate whether total number of authors, or female last authorship predicted female first authorship. A total of 4358 articles were reviewed. Of these, 16.6% (n = 723) were published by a female first and/or last author. Percent of female first and/or last author increased with time, from only 12.2% in 2008, to 15.9% in 2014, reaching 21.7% in 2019. A total of 25% (n = 181) of randomized controlled trials were published by a female first and/or last author compared with only 14% (n = 440) of case studies. Female first and last authorship both increased across the 10-year study period, but there were consistently more female first authors than female last authors in all 3 surveyed years ( P < .001). There was an 86% increased chance of female first authorship if the last author was also female ( P < .001), and a 7% increased likelihood of female first authorship ( P = .002). Women have a lower representation in the cosmetic plastic surgery literature than men. This gender disparity gap, however, is decreasing. While encouraging, opportunities for improvement remain.
13
Pereira, Márcia Helena De Melo, and Joyce Maria Sandes da Silva. "Indícios de autoria em textos de escolares surdos (Evidence of authorship in deaf school texts)." Estudos da Língua(gem) 12, no. 2 (2014): 179. http://dx.doi.org/10.22481/el.v12i2.1260.
Full textAbstract:
O presente estudo objetiva investigar a presença de autoria em dois textos de um sujeito surdo estudante do primeiro ano do Ensino Médio. Refletiremos sobre a questão da autoria a partir dos postulados de R. Barthes, M. Foucault, E. Orlandi e S. Possenti, analisando como esses autores explicam essa questão, em busca de uma noção que pudesse contemplar a autoria em textos de escolares. Nossa discussão conclui que a escola tem um papel importante para que o aluno exerça também uma função autor. PALAVRAS-CHAVE: Autoria. Indícios de Autoria. Textos de Escolares.
 ABSTRACT This study aims at investigating evidences of authorship in two texts written by a deaf freshman high student. It brings reflections on the question about being an author from the postulates of R. Barthes, M. Foucault, E. Orlandi and S. Possenti, analyzing how these authors have attempted to explain the notion of authorship, searching for a notion that could reach the authorship in the students' texts. This discussion concludes that the school has an important role in the development of student's author function.KEYWORDS: Authorship. Evidences of Authorship. Students' texts.
14
Hillary, Lynn. "Down the Drain with General Principles of EU Law? The EU-Turkey Deal and ‘Pseudo-Authorship’." European Journal of Migration and Law 23, no. 2 (2021): 127–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15718166-12340097.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This article aims to provide guidelines to the courts of the Member States and the CJEU concerning the authorship of external migration management deals, and the judicial review of such deals based on the general principles of EU law. The selected example of external migration management is the EU-Turkey Deal, which is identified in this article as an example of ‘pseudo-authorship’: the EU is the de facto author of the deal, but the Member States (as pseudo-authors) are regarded by the General Court as the actual authors. The article shows that the pseudo-authorship approach may lead to the circumvention of general principles of EU law. To avoid further erosion of these principles in the wake of any future deals on migration management, a definite need for a serious investigation of authorship exists. This article recommends assessing authorship with the three scenarios in mind that are identified in this article: the EU as only author; the EU as de facto author and the Member States as pseudo-authors; or the Member States as only authors. All three scenarios, it is argued here, induce judicial review based on the general principles of EU law.
15
Mikhailova, Elena, Polina Diurdeva, and Dmitry Shalymov. "N-Gram Based Approach for Text Authorship Classification." International Journal of Embedded and Real-Time Communication Systems 8, no. 2 (2017): 24–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijertcs.2017070102.
Full textAbstract:
Automated authorship attribution is actual to identify the author of an anonymous texts, or texts whose authorship is in doubt. It can be used in various applications including author verification, plagiarism detection, computer forensics and others. In this article, the authors analyze an approach based on frequency combination of letters is investigated for solving such a task as classification of documents by authorship. This technique could be used to identify the author of a computer program from a predefined set of possible authors. The effectiveness of this approach is significantly determined by the choice of metric. The research examines and compares four different distance measures between a text of unknown authorship and an authors' profile: L1 measure, Kullback-Leibler divergence, base metric of Common N-gram method (CNG) and a certain variation of dissimilarity measure of CNG method. Comparison outlines cases when some metric outperforms others with a specific parameter combination. Experiments are conducted on different Russian and English corpora.
16
Gonzalez Aleu, Fernando, and Eileen M. Van Aken. "Continuous improvement projects: an authorship bibliometric analysis." International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 30, no. 5 (2017): 467–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/ijhcqa-07-2016-0105.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe the current research on hospital continuous improvement projects (CIPs) from an author characteristics’ perspective. This work addresses the following questions: who are the predominant research authors in hospital CIPs? To what extent are the research communities collaborating in distinct research groups? How internationalized has hospital CIPs research become with respect to author location? Design/methodology/approach A systematic literature review was conducted, identifying 302 academic publications related to hospital CIPs. Publications were analyzed using: author, quantity, diversity, collaboration, and impact. Findings Hospital CIPs are increasingly attracting new scholars each year. Based on the authors’ analysis, authors publishing in this area can be described as a relatively new international community given the countries represented. Originality/value This paper describes the current hospital CIP research by assessing author characteristics. Future work should examine additional attributes to characterize maturity such as how new knowledge is being created and to what extent new knowledge is being disseminated to practitioners.
17
van Doren, Sophie, Margarita Brida, Michael A. Gatzoulis, et al. "Sex differences in publication volume and quality in congenital heart disease: are women disadvantaged?" Open Heart 6, no. 1 (2019): e000882. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2018-000882.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundWomen are underrepresented in leading medical positions and academia. The gender-gap in authorship of congenital heart disease (CHD) publications remains unknown. As determinants of gender equity in this field are poorly characterised, we aimed to quantify and characterise publications in CHD and to assess factors associated with female representation in research.Methods and resultsWe identified 35 118 CHD publications between 2006 and 2015 for which author gender could be ascertained. Overall, 25.0% of all authors were female. Women accounted for 30.2% and 20.8% of all first and senior authorship positions with great geographic heterogeneity. While globally female first and senior authorship increased by 0.8% and 0.6%/year, some geographic regions showed no improvement in gender representation. Significant predictors of female first authorship on logistic regression analysis were country gross domestic product, human development index, gender inequality index and a female senior author (p<0.0001 for all). Publications with a female lead author tended to be published in journals with a higher impact factor (IF) and to attract more citations compared with those with a male author. Mixed gender authorship was associated with higher IF and number of citations. Women were less disadvantaged when the analysis was confined to original research.ConclusionsWhile modest improvement in female authorship over time was noted, women remain underrepresented in contemporary academic CHD. Manuscripts with mixed gender authorship had higher IF and more citations. The main predictor of female first authorship was a female senior author. These data should inform policy recommendations regarding gender parity.
18
Snake-Beings, Emit. "The Construction of Karen Karnak: The Multi-Author Function." Media International Australia 147, no. 1 (2013): 40–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1329878x1314700106.
Full textAbstract:
The context of this article is the changes in authorship that have occurred within the comparatively recent developments of Web 2.0 and the emergence of interactive WikiMedia. The mode of authorship within a Read/Write culture, compared with that of a Read/Only tradition, is that the role of the audience has become merged with the author, and as such represents new functions and attributes. Modes of multi-authorship, demonstrated in the use of the pseudonyms Karen Karnak and Karen Eliot, represent declarative authors whose names signify multiple origins, while concurrently indicating a distinct body of work. The function of these names forms an important tool of deconstruction involving an experimental mode of multi-authorship utilising WikiMedia technology in the creation of a collective multi-author pseudonym, Karen Karnak. The article ends with a discussion of the implications of multi-authorship on the concept of the body of work, ownership and copyright.
19
Fang, Yong, Yue Yang, and Cheng Huang. "EmailDetective: An Email Authorship Identification And Verification Model." Computer Journal 63, no. 11 (2020): 1775–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/comjnl/bxaa059.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract Emails are often used to illegal cybercrime today, so it is important to verify the identity of the email author. This paper proposes a general model for solving the problem of anonymous email author attribution, which can be used in email authorship identification and email authorship verification. The first situation is to find the author of an anonymous email among the many suspected targets. Another situation is to verify if an email was written by the sender. This paper extracts features from the email header and email body and analyzes the writing style and other behaviors of email authors. The behaviors of email authors are extracted through a statistical algorithm from email headers. Moreover, the author’s writing style in the email body is extracted by a sequence-to-sequence bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) algorithm. This model combines multiple factors to solve the problem of anonymous email author attribution. The experiments proved that the accuracy and other indicators of proposed model are better than other methods. In email authorship verification experiment, our average accuracy, average recall and average F1-score reached 89.9%. In email authorship identification experiment, our model’s accuracy rate is 98.9% for 10 authors, 92.9% for 25 authors and 89.5% for 50 authors.
20
Göksel Demiray, Başak. "Authorship in Cinema: Author & Reader." CINEJ Cinema Journal 4, no. 1 (2015): 4–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/cinej.2014.62.
Full textAbstract:
This study consists of an elaboration on authorship in cinema by employing the conceptions of the ‘author’ and the ‘reader’. Within the scope of this elaboration, for a better understanding of the ‘cinematic-author’, first, the literary origin of the concept of the ‘author’ will be examined. Then, ‘Who is an author in cinema?’ will be questioned both through the on-going debates about the conception and what the concept itself means to me. Finally, the focus of the study will shift to the concept of the ‘reader’ and its interdependent relationship with the concept of the ‘author’; and it will be stated that, unlike post-structuralist ideas, it is not necessary to kill the ‘author’ for the birth of the ‘reader’.
21
Shah, Jay N. "‘Author and Authorship’ in Scientific Journals." Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences 1, no. 1 (2015): 1–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/jpahs.v1i1.13006.
Full text
22
Kang, In-Su, Seung-Hoon Na, Seungwoo Lee, et al. "On co-authorship for author disambiguation." Information Processing & Management 45, no. 1 (2009): 84–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2008.06.006.
Full text
23
Seroussi, Yanir, Ingrid Zukerman, and Fabian Bohnert. "Authorship Attribution with Topic Models." Computational Linguistics 40, no. 2 (2014): 269–310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00173.
Full textAbstract:
Authorship attribution deals with identifying the authors of anonymous texts. Traditionally, research in this field has focused on formal texts, such as essays and novels, but recently more attention has been given to texts generated by on-line users, such as e-mails and blogs. Authorship attribution of such on-line texts is a more challenging task than traditional authorship attribution, because such texts tend to be short, and the number of candidate authors is often larger than in traditional settings. We address this challenge by using topic models to obtain author representations. In addition to exploring novel ways of applying two popular topic models to this task, we test our new model that projects authors and documents to two disjoint topic spaces. Utilizing our model in authorship attribution yields state-of-the-art performance on several data sets, containing either formal texts written by a few authors or informal texts generated by tens to thousands of on-line users. We also present experimental results that demonstrate the applicability of topical author representations to two other problems: inferring the sentiment polarity of texts, and predicting the ratings that users would give to items such as movies.
24
LAYTON, ROBERT, PAUL WATTERS, and RICHARD DAZELEY. "Recentred local profiles for authorship attribution." Natural Language Engineering 18, no. 3 (2011): 293–312. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1351324911000180.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractAuthorship attribution methods aim to determine the author of a document, by using information gathered from a set of documents with known authors. One method of performing this task is to create profiles containing distinctive features known to be used by each author. In this paper, a new method of creating an author or document profile is presented that detects features considered distinctive, compared to normal language usage. Thisrecentreingapproach creates more accurate profiles than previous methods, as demonstrated empirically using a known corpus of authorship problems. This method, named recentred local profiles, determines authorship accurately using a simple ‘best matching author’ approach to classification, compared to other methods in the literature. The proposed method is shown to be more stable than related methods as parameter values change. Using a weighted voting scheme, recentred local profiles is shown to outperform other methods in authorship attribution, with an overall accuracy of 69.9% on thead-hocauthorship attribution competition corpus, representing a significant improvement over related methods.
25
Taha, Birra, Praneeth Sadda, Graham Winston, et al. "Increases in female academic productivity and female mentorship highlight sustained progress in previously identified neurosurgical gender disparities." Neurosurgical Focus 50, no. 3 (2021): E3. http://dx.doi.org/10.3171/2020.12.focus20939.
Full textAbstract:
OBJECTIVEA meta-analysis was performed to understand disparities in the representation of female authorship within the neurosurgical literature and implications for career advancement of women in neurosurgery.METHODSAuthor names for articles published in 16 of the top neurosurgical journals from 2002 to 2019 were obtained from MEDLINE. The gender of each author was determined using automated prediction methods. Publication trends were compared over time and across subdisciplines. Female authorship was also compared to the proportionate composition of women in the field over time.RESULTSThe metadata obtained from 16 major neurosurgical journals yielded 66,546 research articles. Gender was successfully determined for 96% (127,809/133,578) of first and senior authors, while the remainder (3.9%) were unable to be determined through prediction methods. Across all years, 13.3% (8826) of articles had female first authorship and 9.1% (6073) had female senior authorship. Female first authorship increased significantly over time from 5.8% in 2002 to 17.2% in 2019 (p < 0.001). Female senior authorship also increased significantly over time, from 5.5% in 2002 to 12.0% in 2019 (p < 0.001). The journals with the highest proportions of female first authors and senior authors were the Journal of Neurosurgery: Pediatrics (33.5%) and the Asian Journal of Neurosurgery (23.8%), respectively. Operative Neurosurgery had the lowest fraction of female first (12.4%) and senior (4.7%) authors. There was a significant difference between the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical trainees and the year-by-year proportion of female neurosurgical first (p < 0.001) and senior (p < 0.001) authors. Articles were also more likely to have a female first author if the senior author of the article was female (OR 2.69, CI 2.52–2.86; p < 0.001). From 1944 to 2019, the Journal of Neurosurgery showed a steady increase in female first and senior authorship, with a plateau beginning in the 1990s.CONCLUSIONSLarge meta-analysis techniques have the potential to effectively leverage large amounts of bibliometric data to quantify the representation of female authorship in the neurosurgical literature. The proportion of female authors in major neurosurgical journals has steadily increased. However, the rate of increase in female senior authorship has lagged behind the rate of increase in first authorship, indicating a disparity in academic advancement in women in neurosurgery.
26
Shah, Akash, Sathish Rajasekaran, Anup Bhat, and John M. Solomon. "Frequency and Factors Associated With Honorary Authorship in Indian Biomedical Journals: Analysis of Papers Published From 2012 to 2013." Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13, no. 2 (2018): 187–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1556264617751475.
Full textAbstract:
Honorary authorship is the inclusion of an author on an article whose contribution does not warrant authorship. We conducted an Internet-based survey among first authors publishing in Indian biomedical journals from 2012 to 2013 to study the frequency and factors associated with honorary authorship. The response rate was 27% (245/908) with the prevalence of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined, and unperceived honorary authorship of 20.9% (50/239), 60% (147/245), and 46.9% (115/245), respectively. Those residing in India were found to list more honorary authors. We hope to increase awareness of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and the general issue of honorary authorship among researchers in India and elsewhere.
27
Schroter, Sara, Ilaria Montagni, Elizabeth Loder, M. Eikermann, Elke Schäffner, and Tobias Kurth. "Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors." BMJ Open 10, no. 9 (2020): e036899. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036899.
Full textAbstract:
ObjectivesTo investigate authors’ awareness and use of authorship guidelines, and to assess their perceptions of the fairness of authorship decisions.DesignA cross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research papers submitted in 2014 to 18 BMJ journals.Results3859/12 646 (31%) researchers responded. They worked in 93 countries and varied in research experience. Of these, 1326 (34%) reported their institution had an authorship policy providing criteria for authorship; 2871 (74%) were ‘very familiar’ with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ authorship criteria and 3358 (87%) reported that guidelines were beneficial when preparing manuscripts. Furthermore, 2609 (68%) reported that their use was ‘sometimes’ or ‘frequently’ encouraged in their research setting. However, 2859 respondents (74%) reported that they had been involved in a study at least once where someone was added as an author who had not contributed substantially (honorary authorship), and 1305 (34%) where someone was not listed as an author but had contributed substantially (ghost authorship). Only 740 (19%) reported that they had never experienced either honorary or ghost authorship; 1115 (29%) reported that they had experienced both at least once. There was no clear pattern in experience of authorship misappropriation by continent. For their last coauthored article, 2187 (57%) reported that explicit authorship criteria had been used to determine eligibility, and 3088 (80%) felt that the decision made was fair. When institutions frequently encouraged use of authorship guidelines, authorship eligibility was more likely to be discussed early (817 of 1410, 58%) and perceived as fairer (1273 of 1410, 90%) compared with infrequent encouragement (974 of 2449, 40%, and 1891 of 2449, 74%).ConclusionsDespite a high level of awareness of authorship guidelines and criteria, these are not so widely used; more explicit encouragement of their use by institutions may result in more favourable use of guidelines by authors.
28
Hart, Kamber L., and Roy H. Perlis. "Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008–2019." BMJ Open 11, no. 1 (2021): e046002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046002.
Full textAbstract:
ObjectiveAuthorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last few decades, this study sought to determine if there had been a shift in the distribution of authorship among those publishing in high-impact academic medical journals over the last 12 years.DesignThis study analysed the distribution of authorship across 312 222 original articles published in 134 medium-impact to high-impact academic medical journals between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2019. Additionally, this study compared the trends in author distributions across nine medical specialties and a collection of cross-specialty high-impact journal articles.Primary outcome measuresThe distribution of authorship was assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC), a widely used measure of economic inequality.ResultsThe overall GC for all articles sampled across the 12-year study period was 0.49, and the GCs for the first and last authorship positions were 0.30 and 0.44, respectively. Since 2008, there was a significant positive correlation between year and GC for the overall authorship position (r=0.99, p<0.001) the first author position (r=0.75, p=0.007) and the last author position (r=0.85, p<0.001) indicating increasingly uneven distribution in authorship over time. The cross-specialty high-impact journals exhibited the greatest rate of increase in GC over the study period for the first and last author position of any specialty analysed.ConclusionOverall, these data suggest a growing inequality in authorship across authors publishing in high-impact academic medical journals, especially among the highest impact journals. These findings may have implications for processes such as promotions and allocation of research funding that use authorship metrics as key criteria for making decisions.
29
Conzen, Catharina, Karlijn Hakvoort, Hans Clusmann, and Anke Höllig. "Female Participation in Academic European Neurosurgery—A Cross-Sectional Analysis." Brain Sciences 11, no. 7 (2021): 834. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070834.
Full textAbstract:
The study aims to provide data on authors’ gender distribution with special attention on publications from Europe. Articles (October 2019–March 2020) published in three representative neurosurgical journals (Acta Neurochirurgica, Journal of Neurosurgery, Neurosurgery) were analyzed with regard to female participation. Out of 648 publications, 503 original articles were analyzed: 17.5% (n = 670) of the 3.821 authors were female, with 15.7% (n = 79) females as first and 9.5% (n = 48) as last authors. The lowest ratio of female first and last authors was seen in original articles published in the JNS (12.3%/7.7% vs. Neurosurgery 14.9%/10.6% and Acta 23.0/11.5%). Articles originated in Europe made up 29.8% (female author ratio 21.1% (n = 226)). Female first authorship was seen in 20.7% and last authorship in 10.7% (15.3% and 7.3% were affiliated to a neurosurgical department). The percentages of female authorship were lower if non-original articles (n = 145) were analyzed (11.7% first/4.8% last authorships). Female participation in editorial boards was 8.0%. Considering the percentages of European female neurosurgeons, the current data are proportional. However, the lack of female last authors, the discrepancy regarding non-original articles and the composition of the editorial boards indicate that there still is a structural underrepresentation and that females are limited in achieving powerful positions.
30
Inge, M. Thomas. "Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, no. 3 (2001): 623–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/s0030812900112714.
Full textAbstract:
Despite efforts among recent critical theorists to remove, banish, or even kill the author, the author remains at the center of general critical attention. It is commonplace now to understand that all texts produced by authors are not the products of individual creators. Rather, they are the result of any number of discourses that take place among the writer, the political and social environments in which the writing occurs, the aesthetic and economic pressures that encourage the process, the psychological and emotional state of the writer, and the reader who is expected to receive or consume the end product when it reaches print. Even if not intended for an audience or the publishing marketplace, a piece of writing cannot escape the numerous influences that produce it. All discourse is socially constructed.
31
Inge, M. Thomas. "Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship." PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, no. 3 (2001): 623–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2001.116.3.623.
Full textAbstract:
Despite efforts among recent critical theorists to remove, banish, or even kill the author, the author remains at the center of general critical attention. It is commonplace now to understand that all texts produced by authors are not the products of individual creators. Rather, they are the result of any number of discourses that take place among the writer, the political and social environments in which the writing occurs, the aesthetic and economic pressures that encourage the process, the psychological and emotional state of the writer, and the reader who is expected to receive or consume the end product when it reaches print. Even if not intended for an audience or the publishing marketplace, a piece of writing cannot escape the numerous influences that produce it. All discourse is socially constructed.
32
McNutt, Marcia K., Monica Bradford, Jeffrey M. Drazen, et al. "Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 11 (2018): 2557–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115.
Full textAbstract:
In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.
33
Meyerholz, David K., Hibret A. Adissu, Tania Carvalho, et al. "Exclusion of Expert Contributors From Authorship Limits the Quality of Scientific Articles." Veterinary Pathology 58, no. 4 (2021): 650–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/03009858211011943.
Full textAbstract:
Veterinary pathologists are key contributors to multidisciplinary biomedical research. However, they are occasionally excluded from authorship in published articles despite their substantial intellectual and data contributions. To better understand the potential origins and implications of this practice, we identified and analyzed 29 scientific publications where the contributing pathologist was excluded as an author. The amount of pathologist-generated data contributions were similar to the calculated average contributions for authors, suggesting that the amount of data contributed by the pathologist was not a valid factor for their exclusion from authorship. We then studied publications with pathologist-generated contributions to compare the effects of inclusion or exclusion of the pathologist as an author. Exclusion of the pathologist from authorship was associated with significantly lower markers of rigor and reproducibility compared to articles in which the pathologist was included as author. Although this study did not find justification for the exclusion of pathologists from authorship, potential consequences of their exclusion on data quality were readily detectable.
34
Malchuk, Alexa Mieses, Megan Coffman, Elizabeth Wilkinson, and Yalda Jabbarpour. "Gender Concordance of First and Senior Authors in Family Medicine Journals." Family Medicine 53, no. 2 (2021): 92–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.22454/fammed.2021.355251.
Full textAbstract:
Background and Objectives: Women have increased in presence within academic family medicine over time yet remain underrepresented among senior faculty. Mentorship is a mechanism by which senior faculty support scholarly achievements, accelerating advancement of junior faculty. Methods: We analyzed 10 years (2008-2017) of original research articles in three peer-reviewed family medicine journals. We examined first author/last author pairs by gender as a proxy for mentorship of junior faculty by senior faculty. We compiled family medicine faculty data across 9 years to compare trends in scholarly mentorship with faculty advancement. Results: Female last authorship increased from 28.8% (55/191) of original research articles with a first and last author in 2008 to 41.8% (94/225) in 2017. The share of female first authors on articles with a female last author was 56.4% in 2008 and 2017. The share of female first authors on articles with a male last author increased from 41.2% (56/136) to 55.7% (73/131) between 2008 and 2017. From 2009-2017, the proportion of women increased for assistant, associate, and full professor roles, but remained under 50% for the associate professor role and at 35% for professorship in 2017. Conclusions: Despite disproportionate rates of last authorship and senior faculty positions in family medicine departments, senior female authors have equal if not greater rates of mentorship of female first authors in family medicine literature. The increase in first authorship, last authorship, and faculty position indicates that improvements have occurred in gender advancement over the study period, but gains are still needed to improve gender equity within the field.
35
Jazila, Nur Inda. "CLOSE AND OPEN TASK AUTHORSHIP ATTRIBUTION: A COMPUTATIONAL AUTHORSHIP ANALYSIS." PARADIGM 2, no. 1 (2019): 27. http://dx.doi.org/10.18860/prdg.v2i1.6704.
Full textAbstract:
<p>Authorship analysis is one of the areas lies within forensic linguistics where the main task is to investigate the characteristics of a text in terms of its authorship. Specifically, authorship attribution examines the possibility of an author for having written the text by analyzing the author's other works. This experimental research addresses two problems: which author writes which text (using a closed task authorship attribution) and who writes each text (using an open task of authorship attribution). In doing so, this research uses R to do statistical computing employing both stylo() and classify() functions. Based on carried out experiments with 1-grams as a fixed variable, it is concluded that SVM algorithm may be best used in doing closed task authorship attribution for its 100% consistency, whereas for the open task k-NN algorithm may be best used since it reaches 94% consistency. In addition to open class task, stylo() function may perform better than classify() function since stylo() function provides results closer to the actual answer. As the legal system often challenges authorship analysis for not having a valid methodology, analyzing styles using stylometry and measuring the styles computationally may help forensic linguists to provide an adequate analysis for the legal system. Scientifically this research provides a framework of how to do authorship analysis computationally while practically it is projected can be used as a tool to detect plagiarism.</p><p> </p>
36
Wiley, Terry L. "Principles and Ethics of Authorship." Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 62, no. 1 (2019): 206–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2018_jslhr-h-18-0181.
Full textAbstract:
Purpose Rules and ethics of authorship for scientific papers are reviewed. Those authorship criteria specific to American Speech-Language-Hearing Association journals are reviewed as well as those required by journals in related fields. Conclusions The importance of first author status for students publishing their doctoral dissertation research is stressed as well as the need to discuss and resolve authorship status for all investigators early in the research process. The authorship criteria for the journal of choice are mandatory, and this necessitates educating all authors regarding the existing requirements.
37
Parajuli, Ramesh. "Authorship in Medical Literature." Nepalese Journal of ENT Head and Neck Surgery 5, no. 1 (2017): 26–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.3126/njenthns.v5i1.16875.
Full textAbstract:
Scientific paper publication has an important role in the academic filed. Being an author of such paper based on the research or other scholarly activity is associated with many benefits such as peer recognition, financial gain, promotion, job appointment, and fellowship and research awards. The race to increase the quantity rather than the quality of manuscript among the researchers has made the researchers being involved in an unethical practice. To be included as an author one must fulfill the authorship criteria developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). One shouldn’t be given credit for authorship who can’t defend the published work. Authorship misuse in the form of gift authorship, guest authorship or ghost authorship is not uncommon these days. To reduce the authorship conflicts many journals have set strict policy to mention about the nature of the contribution made by each “author” and that information is available to the readers.
38
BRAS-AMORÓS, MARIA, JOSEP DOMINGO-FERRER, and ALBERT VICO-OTON. "CO-CITATIONS AND RELEVANCE OF AUTHORS AND AUTHOR GROUPS." International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 19, supp01 (2011): 127–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/s0218488511007386.
Full textAbstract:
The way an author or a group of authors are cited tells more about the real impact of their work than authorship and collaborations. Indeed, the connections within the scientific community can be more accurately elicited from the co-citation graph than from the collaboration graph. We suggest some indices that can be drawn from the co-citation graph in order to capture the relevance of individual authors and the relevance of groups of authors.
39
Mamtani, Mira, Frances Shofer, Anita Mudan, et al. "Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study." BMJ Open 10, no. 2 (2020): e034056. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-034056.
Full textAbstract:
BackgroundScholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles.ObjectiveWe sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals.Design/Setting/ParticipantsIn this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018.Primary outcome measureAuthorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal.Secondary outcome measuresTo compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author.ResultsOf the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles.ConclusionsWomen physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.
40
Yin, Hao, Youwen Sun, Cheng Liu, Wei Wang, Changgong Shan, and Lingling Zha. "Erratum: Yin et al. Remote Sensing of Atmospheric Hydrogen Fluoride (HF) over Hefei, China with Ground-Based High-Resolution Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectrometry. Remote Sens. 2021, 13, 791." Remote Sensing 13, no. 9 (2021): 1802. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs13091802.
Full text
41
Гнатюк, Мирослава. "Co-authorship of Intelligent: Author — Reader — Interpretation." Problems of Contemporary Literary Studies, no. 26 (April 26, 2018): 196–205. http://dx.doi.org/10.18524/2312-6809.2018.26.129481.
Full text
42
Bae, Chong-Woo, and Chang-Kok Hahm. "Author and Authorship in Reporting Medical Papers." Journal of the Korean Medical Association 51, no. 4 (2008): 294. http://dx.doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2008.51.4.294.
Full text
43
Leitch, Thomas. "Lights! Camera! Author! Authorship as Hollywood performance." Journal of Screenwriting 7, no. 1 (2016): 113–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1386/josc.7.1.113_1.
Full text
44
Alves-Costa, Lucas Piter. "Comutação autoral e a problemática da unidade "autor-obra" nos quadrinhos." Ilha do Desterro A Journal of English Language, Literatures in English and Cultural Studies 71, no. 2 (2018): 75–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.5007/2175-8026.2018v71n2p75.
Full textAbstract:
This work aims to discuss the notion of Author and Work as correlates and their insertion into a problematic of unity between these notions, in a perspective based on Foucault (2008, 2009). From AUTHOR (year), Maingueneau (2006) and Bourdieu (1996), the Comics are taken, in this work, as a relatively autonomous institution that engenders a field of activities, the quadrinistic field, in which subjects positioned as authors, mediators and readers act in the elaboration, sustentation and legitimation of the names of Authors. The discussion about the Autor-Obra unit is based on the author's commutability present in the Comics. Author switching is the process by which comic works are produced by different authors, interchangeable with each other in other works and with diverse roles, such as screenwriter, draftsman, art-finalist, colorist, among others. The discussion points to the difficulties in defining the functioning of authorship (the author function) in Comics because of the non-unity between Author and Work, characteristic of this institution.
45
Jabbehdari, Sahra, and John P. Walsh. "Authorship Norms and Project Structures in Science." Science, Technology, & Human Values 42, no. 5 (2017): 872–900. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0162243917697192.
Full textAbstract:
Scientific authorship has become a contested terrain in contemporary science. Based on a survey of authors across fields, we measure the likelihood of specialist authors (sometimes called “guest” authors): people who only made specialized contributions, such as data, materials, or funding; and “nonauthor collaborators” (sometimes referred to as “ghost” authors): those who did significant work on the project but do not appear as authors, across different research contexts, including field, size of the project team, commercial orientation, impact of publication, and organization of the collaboration. We find that guest and ghost authors are common, with about one-third of publications having at least one specialist author and over half having at least one nonauthor collaborator. We see significant cross-field variations in both overall rates and types of specialist authors and nonauthor collaborators. We find there are generally fewer specialist authors among highly cited papers and more graduate student nonauthor collaborators in single location projects. The results suggest authorship practices vary across fields, and by project characteristics, complicating the use of authorship lists as a basis for evaluation (especially when comparing across fields or types of projects). We discuss implications of these findings for interpreting author lists in the context of science policy.
46
Lopes, Paulo Henrique. "The Mutiny of the Pseudonyms in the Kierkegaardian Authorship." Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook 25, no. 1 (2020): 303–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/kierke-2020-0014.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The essay emphasizes the unsolvable tension between activity and passivity implied in Kierkegaard’s reduplication as an author of authors. To characterize the different approaches to pseudonymity, I will use the term Halvbefaren [the inexperienced seaman] to refer to a reading that appeals only to Kierkegaard’s or to the pseudonyms’ authority over the authorship, and Helbefaren [the experienced seaman] to refer to another interpretation that recognizes that unsolvable tension between them. Recurring to the sailing metaphor implicit in these terms that appear in Climacus’ Postscript, I defend the thesis that the pseudonyms open the authorship from within, overcoming Kierkegaard as a usual author, as the only captain of the entire authorship. The mutiny performed by the pseudonyms cannot be resolved by simply transferring the authority to the pseudonyms themselves, and it creates a subjective space in the authorship so it becomes a matter of the experience of the reader.
47
Levorato, M. Chiara, and Barbara Arfé. "Children's beliefs about authorship." International Journal of Behavioral Development 30, no. 6 (2006): 550–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0165025406072903.
Full textAbstract:
Two studies investigated children's beliefs about texts and their origins in an author's mind. In Study 1, 80 children between 4 and 7 years of age were interviewed during a dialogic story-reading activity to investigate their level of awareness about the author's existence and his or her mental processes. Study 2, involving only 5-and 6-year-olds, tested the hypothesis that guided reflection on fictional realities in a story might facilitate children's understanding that an author exists and that a story is the result of his or her mental activity. Results show that mature conceptions of the mental origins of the text appear around the age of 7 but that structured reflection about the fictional nature of the story may trigger this awareness starting around the age of 5 or 6.
48
Besamusca, Bart, Gareth Griffith, Matthias Meyer, and Hannah Morcos. "Author Attributions in Medieval Text Collections: An Exploration." Amsterdamer Beiträge zur älteren Germanistik 76, no. 1 (2016): 89–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/18756719-12340004.
Full textAbstract:
This article examines the role and function of author attributions in multi-text manuscripts containing Dutch, English, French or German short verse narratives. The findings represent one strand of the investigations undertaken by the cross-European project ‘The Dynamics of the Medieval Manuscript’, which analysed the dissemination of short verse narratives and the principles of organisation underlying the compilation of text collections. Whilst short verse narratives are more commonly disseminated anonymously, there are manuscripts in which authorship is repeatedly attributed to a text or corpus. Through six case studies, this article explores medieval concepts of authorship and how they relate to constructions of authority, whether regarding an empirical figure or a literary construction. In addition, it looks at how authorship plays a role in manuscript compilation, and at the effects of attributions (by author and/or compiler) on reception. The case studies include manuscripts from the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries, produced in a range of social and cultural contexts, and featuring some of the most important European authors of short verse narratives: Rutebeuf, Baudouin de Condé, Der Stricker, Konrad von Würzburg, Willem of Hildegaersberch, and Geoffrey Chaucer. The preliminary findings contribute to our understanding of author attributions in text collections from across northern Europe and point towards future lines of enquiry into the role of authorship in medieval textual dissemination.
49
Ede, Lisa, and Andrea A. Lunsford. "Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship." Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, no. 2 (2001): 354–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/s0030812900105243.
Full textAbstract:
Cogito, ergo sum.—Rene DescartesI yam what I am.—Ralph EllisonWho am we?—Sherry Turkle1What does it mean to be an author? this question has been interrogated from just about every imaginable angle, as the status of the author has been problematized, deconstructed, and challenged to such an extent that discussions of the author problem now seem decidedly old-hat. Scholars now understand—in theory, at least—that the notion of author (like that of the founding or sovereign subject on which it depends) is a peculiarly modern construct, one that can be traced back through multiple and overdetermined pathways to the development of modern capitalism and of intellectual property, to Western rationalism, and to patriarchy. Foucault's assertion that “[t]he coming into being of the notion of ‘author’ constitutes the privileged moment of individualization in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy, and the sciences” no longer surprises (141). The author, like the autonomous individual of Descartes's cogito, is, we understand with Raymond Williams, “a characteristic form of bourgeois thought” (192), one that Ralph Ellison parodies, for instance, when his protagonist, in a fleeting moment of self- and cultural integration, proclaims “I yam what I am” (260). The relentless intertextuality of Web culture, the rapid proliferation of multiple selves online, and the development of what Sherry Turkle has called “distributed selves” of postmodernity would seem to have moved us well beyond autonomous individualism (Life 14).
50
Ede, Lisa, and Andrea A. Lunsford. "Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship." PMLA/Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 116, no. 2 (2001): 354–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1632/pmla.2001.116.2.354.
Full textAbstract:
Cogito, ergo sum.—Rene DescartesI yam what I am.—Ralph EllisonWho am we?—Sherry Turkle1What does it mean to be an author? this question has been interrogated from just about every imaginable angle, as the status of the author has been problematized, deconstructed, and challenged to such an extent that discussions of the author problem now seem decidedly old-hat. Scholars now understand—in theory, at least—that the notion of author (like that of the founding or sovereign subject on which it depends) is a peculiarly modern construct, one that can be traced back through multiple and overdetermined pathways to the development of modern capitalism and of intellectual property, to Western rationalism, and to patriarchy. Foucault's assertion that “[t]he coming into being of the notion of ‘author’ constitutes the privileged moment of individualization in the history of ideas, knowledge, literature, philosophy, and the sciences” no longer surprises (141). The author, like the autonomous individual of Descartes's cogito, is, we understand with Raymond Williams, “a characteristic form of bourgeois thought” (192), one that Ralph Ellison parodies, for instance, when his protagonist, in a fleeting moment of self- and cultural integration, proclaims “I yam what I am” (260). The relentless intertextuality of Web culture, the rapid proliferation of multiple selves online, and the development of what Sherry Turkle has called “distributed selves” of postmodernity would seem to have moved us well beyond autonomous individualism (Life 14).