The controversy over authorship in medical journals

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    1 Citation (Scopus)

    Abstract

    In the controversy over what it means to be an author in medical journals, a common charge is that the ambiguity about this term leads to unfairness. Scholars are said to exploit this ambiguity when they receive credit for papers that they have not authored in any meaningful sense. Reformers advocate tighter editorial control over journal submissions, and expanded scholarly categories, such as one for "contributors." It would make more sense, however, to place responsibility for defining authorship with institutions. Editors are too far removed from the arrangements that scholars make, and submission guidelines can suffer for their generality. Committees within the institutions would know best which scholarly practices they want to encourage, and which working arrangements are fair for those involved. Some institutions might then decide on a liberal interpretation of authorship, while others might restrict that standing to the scholars who actually compose or revise written work.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)55-70
    Number of pages16
    JournalJournal of Information Ethics
    Volume16
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    StatePublished - 1 Sep 2007

    Fingerprint

    credit
    editor
    responsibility
    interpretation
    Medical Journals
    Authorship
    Arrangement
    Responsibility
    Generality
    Reformer
    Credit

    Cite this

    @article{b5012a176b3f42e2a3f110658357e3b6,
    title = "The controversy over authorship in medical journals",
    abstract = "In the controversy over what it means to be an author in medical journals, a common charge is that the ambiguity about this term leads to unfairness. Scholars are said to exploit this ambiguity when they receive credit for papers that they have not authored in any meaningful sense. Reformers advocate tighter editorial control over journal submissions, and expanded scholarly categories, such as one for {"}contributors.{"} It would make more sense, however, to place responsibility for defining authorship with institutions. Editors are too far removed from the arrangements that scholars make, and submission guidelines can suffer for their generality. Committees within the institutions would know best which scholarly practices they want to encourage, and which working arrangements are fair for those involved. Some institutions might then decide on a liberal interpretation of authorship, while others might restrict that standing to the scholars who actually compose or revise written work.",
    author = "Chris Herrera",
    year = "2007",
    month = "9",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.3172/JIE.16.2.55",
    language = "English",
    volume = "16",
    pages = "55--70",
    journal = "Journal of Information Ethics",
    issn = "1061-9321",
    number = "2",

    }

    The controversy over authorship in medical journals. / Herrera, Chris.

    In: Journal of Information Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 2, 01.09.2007, p. 55-70.

    Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The controversy over authorship in medical journals

    AU - Herrera, Chris

    PY - 2007/9/1

    Y1 - 2007/9/1

    N2 - In the controversy over what it means to be an author in medical journals, a common charge is that the ambiguity about this term leads to unfairness. Scholars are said to exploit this ambiguity when they receive credit for papers that they have not authored in any meaningful sense. Reformers advocate tighter editorial control over journal submissions, and expanded scholarly categories, such as one for "contributors." It would make more sense, however, to place responsibility for defining authorship with institutions. Editors are too far removed from the arrangements that scholars make, and submission guidelines can suffer for their generality. Committees within the institutions would know best which scholarly practices they want to encourage, and which working arrangements are fair for those involved. Some institutions might then decide on a liberal interpretation of authorship, while others might restrict that standing to the scholars who actually compose or revise written work.

    AB - In the controversy over what it means to be an author in medical journals, a common charge is that the ambiguity about this term leads to unfairness. Scholars are said to exploit this ambiguity when they receive credit for papers that they have not authored in any meaningful sense. Reformers advocate tighter editorial control over journal submissions, and expanded scholarly categories, such as one for "contributors." It would make more sense, however, to place responsibility for defining authorship with institutions. Editors are too far removed from the arrangements that scholars make, and submission guidelines can suffer for their generality. Committees within the institutions would know best which scholarly practices they want to encourage, and which working arrangements are fair for those involved. Some institutions might then decide on a liberal interpretation of authorship, while others might restrict that standing to the scholars who actually compose or revise written work.

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=36348963594&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    U2 - 10.3172/JIE.16.2.55

    DO - 10.3172/JIE.16.2.55

    M3 - Review article

    AN - SCOPUS:36348963594

    VL - 16

    SP - 55

    EP - 70

    JO - Journal of Information Ethics

    JF - Journal of Information Ethics

    SN - 1061-9321

    IS - 2

    ER -