| Title |
A Simple Framework for Evaluating Authorial Contributions for Scientific Publications
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, November 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-015-9719-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jeffrey M. Warrender |
| Abstract |
A simple tool is provided to assist researchers in assessing contributions to a scientific publication, for ease in evaluating which contributors qualify for authorship, and in what order the authors should be listed. The tool identifies four phases of activity leading to a publication-Conception and Design, Data Acquisition, Analysis and Interpretation, and Manuscript Preparation. By comparing a project participant's contribution in a given phase to several specified thresholds, a score of up to five points can be assigned; the contributor's scores in all four phases are summed to yield a total "contribution score", which is compared to a threshold to determine which contributors merit authorship. This tool may be useful in a variety of contexts in which a systematic approach to authorial credit is desired. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Armenia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| New Zealand | 1 | 4% |
| South Africa | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 26 | 93% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 21% |
| Other | 6 | 21% |
| Researcher | 4 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 7% |
| Professor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 5 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 5 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 11% |
| Computer Science | 3 | 11% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 7% |
| Linguistics | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 8 | 29% |
| Unknown | 5 | 18% |
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 09 November 2016.
All research outputs
#15,702,679
of 24,874,764 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#689
of 949 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#154,515
of 292,143 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#17
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,874,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 949 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. 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 292,143 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.