FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1504202179> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1504202179 endingPage "811" @default.
• W1504202179 startingPage "809" @default.
• W1504202179 abstract "Authorship of scholarly articles in quality, peer reviewed publications is a quintessential aspect of academic life. Although, for some academics, teaching or administration, for example, may be the work focus, for the majority publishing is a key activity and performance measure. Where authorship involves an individual researcher or writer preparing a manuscript for publication, the authorship role is fairly straightforward, with the sole author taking responsibility for all aspects of preparing and submitting the paper for publication, and addressing issues that arise as a result of the peer review process. However, in the majority of papers, more than one person contributes and, while there are clear and authoritative guidelines on criteria for authorship published by respected sources such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (http://www.icmje.org/ethical_1author.html; accessed 14 December 2011), decisions on the order of authorship are less clear cut. It is widely acknowledged that there is a move towards an increased number of authors on papers, which is due in part to the growing pressure to publish and collaborate (Wren et al. 2007). Where there is more than a single author, decisions need to be made about order of authorship. First, it should be determined whether a person qualifies for authorship, or whether they should simply be acknowledged in the paper. Awarding more credit than is due can have positive benefits for those with a limited role and constitutes honorary or ‘ghost’ authorship. Given that kudos can vary with relative author position, decisions about those positions are not made lightly and require very careful consideration. Decisions around order of authorship can be problematic, and it has been reported that many authors can find it challenging to determine that order (Hoen et al. 1998). The difficulties and debates surrounding order of authorship are not new, Shapiro et al. (1994) commented that they are underpinned by ‘different beliefs about what authorship should mean and assumptions about what authorship in fact represents’ (p. 438). There are varying approaches to ordering authors which include alphabetical author ordering (Kassin et al. 2005) or listing authors in descending order in relation to their contribution (Shapiro et al. 1994). Each approach has its shortcomings though and, where alphabetical ordering is used, for example, the reader is left unsure of the actual level and nature of contribution of each author (Kassin et al. 2005). Uncertainty about what ordering protocol has been used can make it difficult for the reader to attribute author contribution consistently based on place in authorship list. It is increasingly common, therefore, to see a published attribution table, footnotes or other explanatory device to describe the contribution or role of each author in a paper (Baerlocher et al. 2009). While such explanatory material may be useful for editors and readers of papers, they still may not offer adequate guidance to members of author teams when deciding on order of authorship. The introduction of author contribution forms by four leading medical journals has not led to fewer authors being listed, if anything there was a trend of an increasing number of authors listed per article (Baerlocher et al. 2009). According to Wren et al. (2007), authors listed first and last on a paper are generally considered to be in key authorship positions and these positions are allocated more credit than elsewhere. First authorship is widely understood to be reserved for the person who contributed most to the study (Gaeta 1999, Mattsson et al. 2011, Zbar & Frank 2011). Indeed, it has been noted that, where simple alphabetical ordering is not used, the position of first author denotes the author who has contributed most and who ‘should receive a greater proportion of the credit’ (Kassin et al. 2005, p. 548). The position of last author is less straightforward, with some sources stating that it may be reserved for the most senior member of the team or department, such as the supervisor in the case of student work, or alternatively, for the person who contributed the least to the work (Gaeta 1999, Costas & Bordons 2011, Zbar & Frank 2011). In larger author teams, the second named author is widely considered to be a key authorship position and often reflects the person who made the second strongest contribution to a paper. This was found to be the case in a retrospective study that sought to determine the relationship between author order and contribution. Baerlocher et al. (2007) found that ‘levels of participation were highest for first authors, followed by last and then second authors’ (p. 174), with middle authors having lower levels of participation in multiple areas. Although these findings contribute to our understanding of how author teams manage decisions around ordering of authors, they do not mean that we can make widespread assumptions about the role of middle authors in any or all of the papers that we might read. There may be other social factors and power dynamics at play which can influence where an author is positioned on a particular paper. Furthermore, divergent views on the meaning of the place of last author suggest that, in the absence of an author contribution table, it might be difficult to determine if last place denotes a major contribution or a relatively minor one. Student status and whether or not an author is embarking on a higher degree will also have an influence in deciding author position if papers are drawn from student Masters or doctoral thesis work. In the case of higher degree student supervision, some primary supervisors will elect to be the last author, placing the student first. In this case, last authorship place is considered to reflect the seniority and leadership role of the supervisor. Alternatively, in the case of more than two authors, some primary supervisors may opt for the second position, with other supervisors following, perhaps in diminishing order of contribution. There have been some attempts to develop schema or models for deciding order of authorship (Gaeta 1999, Kassin et al. 2005), but there is little evidence that these have been adopted in any meaningful way. Furthermore, these are not foolproof, and will not uniformly ensure accuracy and veracity, because there is a dependence on author disclosure of contribution, which may be subjective, and within teams, members can have differing views and perceptions of the contributions of themselves and others. Also, there is a trend for authors to claim equal credit (Akhabue & Lautenbach 2010). Notwithstanding this, when authors contribute equally, a statement can be written as along the lines of ‘joint first authors’ or ‘contributed equally’ (Wren et al. 2007, Akhabue & Lautenbach 2010). Research shows that the practice of attributing equal credit is becoming more common in original research publications in general medicine journals with high impact factors (e.g. Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, British Medical Journal) (Akhabue & Lautenbach 2010). In a study which investigated equal credit in high impact medical journals, in the majority of instances, the first two authors received equal credit although this practice was applied to others in the byline despite the absence of mention of this matter in ‘Instructions to Authors’ (Akhabue & Lautenbach 2010). It is worth noting the relationship between author position and bibliometric indicators. For example, the h-index is increasingly being used to assess publication output and its perceived contribution within the research community, and yet does not take into account the position or role of the author on the paper (Hunt et al. 2010). It has been suggested that the corresponding author is a central position, and research shows that the position of corresponding author is most commonly first, and then last in the byline (Mattsson et al. 2011). Further, these findings also provide some tentative evidence that the corresponding author has contributed more than others to the article (Wren et al. 2007, Mattsson et al. 2011). Finally, responding to reviewers’ comments may entail a substantial rewrite and authorship may be re-ordered during this process to reflect overall contributions to the paper from project development through to, and including submission of the final version of the article. To summarise, the following are some helpful ‘rules of thumbs’ when writing for publication in terms of the attribution of authorship: Authorship itself, regardless of position, is both a responsibility and an honour, and should only be conferred if appropriate criteria are satisfied. Organisations such as ICMJE provide very useful guidance for how to attribute authorship and the use of these may help to anticipate or address challenges. When authors contribute equally, a statement such as ‘joint first authors’ or ‘contributed equally’ may be written (which a journal may, at its discretion, choose to publish). The role of corresponding author is an important one, irrespective of location. The role of first, second and last author are all important, and generally regarded as more significant than authors located elsewhere. Those who do not meet the criteria of authorship, but who may have assisted with the study, should be acknowledged for their efforts in the publication (and sometimes it is prudent to seek permission for published acknowledgement from those persons one wishes to acknowledge)." @default.
• W1504202179 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1504202179 creator A5003406310 @default.
• W1504202179 creator A5017983014 @default.
• W1504202179 creator A5024461249 @default.
• W1504202179 creator A5068076549 @default.
• W1504202179 creator A5083929296 @default.
• W1504202179 date "2012-02-10" @default.
• W1504202179 modified "2023-10-16" @default.
• W1504202179 title "Editorial: Location, location, location - the position of authors in scholarly publishing" @default.
• W1504202179 cites W1971383575 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W1980507789 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W1987854181 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2008142623 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2025554447 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2037914303 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2083162471 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2089663212 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2103185235 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2120016957 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W2158597104 @default.
• W1504202179 cites W4252626938 @default.
• W1504202179 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2011.04062.x" @default.
• W1504202179 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22324539" @default.
• W1504202179 hasPublicationYear "2012" @default.
• W1504202179 type Work @default.
• W1504202179 sameAs 1504202179 @default.
• W1504202179 citedByCount "17" @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792012 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792013 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792014 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792015 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792018 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792020 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792021 @default.
• W1504202179 countsByYear W15042021792023 @default.
• W1504202179 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1504202179 hasAuthorship W1504202179A5003406310 @default.
• W1504202179 hasAuthorship W1504202179A5017983014 @default.
• W1504202179 hasAuthorship W1504202179A5024461249 @default.
• W1504202179 hasAuthorship W1504202179A5068076549 @default.
• W1504202179 hasAuthorship W1504202179A5083929296 @default.
• W1504202179 hasBestOaLocation W15042021791 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C10138342 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C144133560 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C198082294 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C2779473830 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C10138342 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C144133560 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C151719136 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C161191863 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C17744445 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C198082294 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C199539241 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C2779473830 @default.
• W1504202179 hasConceptScore W1504202179C41008148 @default.
• W1504202179 hasIssue "5-6" @default.
• W1504202179 hasLocation W15042021791 @default.
• W1504202179 hasLocation W15042021792 @default.
• W1504202179 hasOpenAccess W1504202179 @default.
• W1504202179 hasPrimaryLocation W15042021791 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W1561014762 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W1994905249 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W2224142343 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W2909147981 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W3212696615 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W3213532152 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W4242087709 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W4251162036 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W4300014364 @default.
• W1504202179 hasRelatedWork W2737707372 @default.
• W1504202179 hasVolume "21" @default.
• W1504202179 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1504202179 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1504202179 magId "1504202179" @default.
• W1504202179 workType "editorial" @default.