↓ Skip to main content

Ethics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
20 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
45 Mendeley
Title
Ethics of Using Language Editing Services in An Era of Digital Communication and Heavily Multi-Authored Papers
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, May 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11948-013-9451-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

George A. Lozano

Abstract

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 45 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 2%
Unknown 44 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Researcher 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 14 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 7 16%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 9%
Arts and Humanities 4 9%
Computer Science 2 4%
Linguistics 2 4%
Other 11 24%
Unknown 15 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#15,687,152
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#715
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#119,044
of 198,081 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 198,081 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.