| Title |
Scientific authorship and intellectual involvement in the research: Should they coincide?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, July 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11019-014-9585-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Gert Helgesson |
| Abstract |
An update of the widely acknowledged recommendations on how to handle authorship in research, issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), was issued in August, 2013. While the revised recommendations contain several clarifications compared to earlier versions, one arguably important aspect is still not addressed: the relationship between authorship and intellectual involvement in research. In this paper, it is argued that the ICMJE authorship criteria are flawed in this respect: they do not explicitly require of authors of scientific papers that they do research. It is further suggested that unless academic authorship clearly reflects to what extent individual researchers have been intellectually involved in the research and to what extent they have merely contributed with research-related work, they will, in many cases, be misleading about research merits. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 15 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 7% |
| France | 1 | 7% |
| Unknown | 13 | 87% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 3 | 20% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 13% |
| Researcher | 2 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 20% |
| Unknown | 2 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 4 | 27% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 13% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 13% |
| Unknown | 4 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 24 July 2014.
All research outputs
#15,985,376
of 23,726,221 outputs
Outputs from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#383
of 605 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#134,756
of 230,231 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy
#7
of 9 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,726,221 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 605 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.7. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% 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 230,231 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 9 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.