FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3134981309> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3134981309 endingPage "144" @default.
• W3134981309 startingPage "143" @default.
• W3134981309 abstract "Authorship of an article published in a peer-reviewed journal is an important academic and scientific achievement. It is a contribution to the health and science literature and a prestigious accomplishment for the authors. But that achievement also requires accountability and responsibility for the article that carries the authors’ names. Over recent years, an increasing number of manuscripts received by this Journal have been disorganized and poorly written on submission. Many of these manuscripts list authors and co-authors who are well-published scholars. Such manuscripts unfortunately risk rejection, as reviewers may miss a worthwhile contribution to the literature while wading through unclear text. This is concerning, not only because of the loss of potentially valuable science, but also because authorship and mentoring authors are an integral component of scholarship. Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data for the work; AND (2) Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND (3) Final approval of the version to be published; AND (4) Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated or resolved. It is important to note that all authors must meet all 4 of these criteria to be considered an author. For someone to add their name to a manuscript who has not in fact met each one of these widely accepted and published requirements for authorship is unethical. Many journals, including JMWH, require each author to verify in writing that they meet all requirements for authorship as part of the publication process. If an individual's contribution to the manuscript does not meet all 4 criteria, that person can be formally acknowledged but cannot be listed as an author. No doubt, many, if not most, authors are familiar with these criteria and believe they meet them. In our view, however, the latter 2 requirements often seem to be unmet. When a manuscript is disorganized, unclear, and lacking accurate or up-to-date content on submission, it seems improbable that all authors, especially those who are seasoned scholars, have in fact read and approved it or recognize their accountability for the work. In some academic circles, it appears customary for those who may be only remotely involved in drafting a manuscript to add their names to the author list without providing much input or oversight during the writing process. Honorary or guest authorship was once a more common practice in academia4 but is now deemed inappropriate or even unethical.5-7 Nonetheless it seems to persist. Some authors have opined that they view the drafting, revision, and submission of a manuscript as being the first author's responsibility. Still others seem to think that it is part of the learning process for students to be left on their own to learn how to produce a publishable manuscript. These are not valid or acceptable practices for scholarly publication. When co-authors cede responsibility for a submission to the first author alone, providing little input or collaborative effort, or when senior authors do not provide the oversight and mentoring necessary to ensure that a manuscript meets minimum criteria for publication, the end result is that authors, reviewers, and editors all suffer. For those authors in the business of mentoring or teaching the next generation of researchers and authors, the addition of one's name without full participation in the authorship process sets an inappropriate example. Junior authors being mentored by their senior colleagues should not be placed in the position of questioning whether those senior colleagues meet requirements for authorship; the power dynamics in such a situation are too unbalanced. And the absence of oversight by senior experienced scholars on manuscripts first-authored by students or junior faculty could be seen as abdicating a presumed academic responsibility for mentorship. It is also a disservice to those who worked on the project to risk rejection of potentially valuable science because a manuscript is of poor quality. Submission of a manuscript that is an unpolished draft also creates an unreasonable burden for those involved in the review and editing process. Peer reviewers should not be expected to sort through a poorly written and disorganized manuscript in order to provide a thoughtful, cogent review. As is true of many nursing journals, the JMWH editors have a longstanding commitment to help novice authors, especially midwife authors, revise a manuscript into a publishable article. However, it is not the editor's job to write someone's manuscript for them, or to do the work of a junior author's mentoring and co-author team. The work of producing a publishable manuscript belongs to those whose names are listed as authors. And these unpolished submissions slight respected, peer-reviewed journals with an assumption that poor manuscripts are reflective of the quality of articles published in that journal. We recognize that contributions to scholarly work can be many and varied. The Consortia for Advancing Standards in Research Administration Information (CASRAI) has developed an informal yet widely accepted taxonomy for this. 8 However, all named authors should review the ICMJE requirements for authorship before submitting a manuscript to a journal and consider whether they in fact meet all 4 authorship criteria, including final approval of and accountability for the submission. Senior scholars and experienced authors who wish to co-author manuscripts with their junior colleagues should not allow a poorly written and poorly organized draft to burden reviewers and editors, but rather should provide the mentorship needed to ensure the submission is suitable for publication. This is the appropriate, ethical, and courteous view of authorship." @default.
• W3134981309 created "2021-03-15" @default.
• W3134981309 creator A5018444442 @default.
• W3134981309 creator A5054990859 @default.
• W3134981309 creator A5065108266 @default.
• W3134981309 creator A5079283890 @default.
• W3134981309 date "2021-03-01" @default.
• W3134981309 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3134981309 title "Honoring Authorship Responsibilities in Manuscript Preparation" @default.
• W3134981309 cites W2146697111 @default.
• W3134981309 cites W2894659089 @default.
• W3134981309 doi "https://doi.org/10.1111/jmwh.13222" @default.
• W3134981309 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33682328" @default.
• W3134981309 hasPublicationYear "2021" @default.
• W3134981309 type Work @default.
• W3134981309 sameAs 3134981309 @default.
• W3134981309 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3134981309 countsByYear W31349813092022 @default.
• W3134981309 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3134981309 hasAuthorship W3134981309A5018444442 @default.
• W3134981309 hasAuthorship W3134981309A5054990859 @default.
• W3134981309 hasAuthorship W3134981309A5065108266 @default.
• W3134981309 hasAuthorship W3134981309A5079283890 @default.
• W3134981309 hasBestOaLocation W31349813091 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C18762648 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C2776007630 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C2778061430 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C55587333 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConcept C78519656 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C127413603 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C15744967 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C161191863 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C17744445 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C18762648 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C199360897 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C199539241 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C2776007630 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C2778061430 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C39549134 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C41008148 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C527412718 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C55587333 @default.
• W3134981309 hasConceptScore W3134981309C78519656 @default.
• W3134981309 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3134981309 hasLocation W31349813091 @default.
• W3134981309 hasOpenAccess W3134981309 @default.
• W3134981309 hasPrimaryLocation W31349813091 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W1507085748 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W2031444665 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W2892276357 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W2899084033 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W3044025763 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W3130763799 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W3169682666 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W2942815088 @default.
• W3134981309 hasRelatedWork W393790654 @default.
• W3134981309 hasVolume "66" @default.
• W3134981309 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3134981309 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3134981309 magId "3134981309" @default.
• W3134981309 workType "article" @default.