首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献,搜索用时 140 毫秒
1.
谈学术论文署名的严肃性   总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1  
学术论文是作者通过辛勤劳动生产出来的成果 ,任何一篇学术论文的正式发表 ,都署有作者的名字 ,这不仅是作者作为原始著作权人应有的一种权利 ,还标志着署名者承担的义务 ,是一种非常严肃的事情 ,是对作者劳动的尊重 ,也是一种荣誉 ,更是一种责任。署名是论文的一个组成部分 ,也是读者阅读论文时的一个信息点。现就学术论文署名的有关问题讨论如下 ,以便引起大家的重视。1 署名的意义论文的书写过程是一项创造性过程 ,意味着某个新学科理论成果的完成或一项新技术的发明。论文发表后 ,会产生很大的社会效益和经济效益 ,同时也为科学宝库起…  相似文献   

2.
目的:进一步了解《温州医学院学报》(以下简称《学报》)核心作者情况。方法:采用文献计量学方法,统计《学报》1959-2008年载文作者的篇数及分布情况。统计指标包括作者发文数量、合作情况、机构分布、核心作者;根据中国期刊全文数据库和中国期刊引文数据库检索统计《学报》1979年至2008年论文所有署名作者的人数及署名次数及其排序。结果:《学报》1959-2008年刊载作者署名论文4 913篇,共有署名作者14 657人次,合作度为2.98,其中独著论文1 266篇,占25.77%;合著论文3 647篇,合作率为74.23%。论文作者的机构分布:温州医学院附属第一医院占27.8%,温州医学院附属第二医院占23.6%,温州医学院校本部占26.1%,其他单位占22.5%。结论:《学报》有一支稳定的作者队伍,论文作者的合作度和合作率较高,表明论文涉及的学科群体研究及合作能力较强。  相似文献   

3.
请作者注意     
《陕西医学杂志》2011,(2):137-137
<正>向本刊投寄稿件时,作者署名一事也请按中华人民共和国国家标准《科学技术报告、学位论文和学术论文的编写格式》(GB7713-87)的有关规定执行,即"封面和题名页上,或学术论文前署名的个人作者,只限于那些对于选定研究课题和制定研究方  相似文献   

4.
国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)在作者身份的标准中明确规定,身为作者须符合以下3个条件:(1)参与研究的构思、设计或分析以及资料的解释;(2)撰写论文或参与论文重要内容的修改;(3)同意最后的修改稿发表。在国内还没有相应标准的情况下,国内作者可参照此标准执行。在实际工作中,一项研究或一篇论文的完成,常常会有很多人参与但真正能成为作者的只是一部分人即符合一定条件如上述条件的人。不符合条件的贡献者(contributor),如参与资料的收集者、指导撰写论文者等,不能算为作者,正确的做法是在论文的致谢部分对他们为研究或论文的完成所做的贡献表示感谢。作者署名一般包括个人和集体署名两种。  相似文献   

5.
《华夏医学》2011,(4):416-416
作者署名不宜过多,一般不超过6人。文章中每位作者应该是论文学术内容的构思者或设计者;实验数据的采集并能给予解释者;能对杂志社提出的审改意见进行修改者;能在学术界就论文内容进行答辩者。对论文有贡献的其他人可写在脚注或致谢项中。综述作者不超过人。作者单位、  相似文献   

6.
请作者注意     
<正>向本刊投寄稿件时,作者署名一事也请按中华人民共和国国家标准《科学技术报告、学位论文和学术论文的编写格式》(GB7713-87)的有关规定执行,即"封面和题名页上,或学术论文前署名的个人作者,只限于那些对于选定研究课题和制定研究方  相似文献   

7.
《华夏医学》2011,(2):149-149
作者署名不宜过多,一般不超过6人。文章中每位作者应该是论文学术内容的构思者或设计者;实验数据的采集并能给予解释者;能对杂志社提出的审改意见进行修改者;能在学术界就论文内容进行答辩者。对论文有贡献的其他人可写在脚注或致谢项中。综述作者不超过2人。  相似文献   

8.
通过对实证和文献资料的研究,了解到医学期刊论文作者署名存在的人情化问题;对常见的亲情署名、友情署名、恩情署名、混合型人情署名等4种类型的人情署名现象进行了定义和解读;提出从法律、学术伦理道德、传统文化和制度规范建设等方面进行由理论到实践的深入研究,以寻求解决医学期刊人情署名问题的切实方法和途径。  相似文献   

9.
《华夏医学》2012,(3):303
作者署名不宜过多,一般不超过6人。文章中每位作者应该是论文学术内容的构思者或设计者;实验数据的采集并能给予解释者;能对杂志社提出的审改意见进行修改者;能在学术界就论文内容进行答辩者。对论文有贡献的其他人可写在脚注或致谢项中。综述作者不超过2人。作者单位、邮政  相似文献   

10.
《华夏医学》2013,(3):438
作者署名不宜过多,一般不超过6人。文章中每位作者应该是论文学术内容的构思者或设计者;实验数据的采集并能给予解释者;能对杂志社提出的审改意见进行修改者;能在学术界就论文内容进行答辩者。对论文有贡献的其他人可写在脚注或致谢项中。  相似文献   

11.
Context.— Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited. Objectives.— To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation. Design.— Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey. Participants.— A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). Main Outcome Measures.— Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors. Results.— Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (19%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88). Conclusion.— A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.   相似文献   

12.
Context.— Although criteria justifying authorship of scientific medical articles have been formulated, it is not well known how authorship is established in practice. Objectives.— To assess the criteria for authorship used by authors of original articles in Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (NTVG, the Dutch Journal of Medicine), and to determine whether the criteria for authorship of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are known and applied. Design.— Survey questionnaire. Setting.— Editorial office of the NTVG. Participants.— All 450 authors of 115 original articles published in 1995. Main Outcome Measures.— Author's contribution to study design, material, collection of data, statistics, and writing. Results.— Of 362 forms returned, 352 could be analyzed (78.2% response rate). The 5 questions most frequently answered affirmatively were ICMJE criteria: critical reading (86.1% of the authors), approval of the final version (84.7%), study design (74.7%), study conception (64.2%), and revision (63.4%). Authors rated their contribution 2 points higher than did their coauthors. Interestingly, 64% of the respondents met the ICMJE criteria, although 60% of the respondents did not know them. Conclusion.— Authorship was mostly in accordance with ICMJE criteria although many authors were not familiar with them.   相似文献   

13.
Bates T  Anić A  Marusić M  Marusić A 《JAMA》2004,292(1):86-88
Context  A number of general medical journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) request authors to disclose their contributions. Little is known about the effect of journal policies on authors' disclosure of their contributions. Objective  To determine the number of named authors who do not meet ICMJE criteria for authorship, according to their published contributions, in 3 medical journals with different contribution disclosure practices. Design  Observational study of authors' contributions in research articles published in 2002 in Annals of Internal Medicine (n = 72), BMJ (n = 107), and JAMA (n = 81). BMJ asks authors to describe research contributions in their own words; Annals asks authors to choose from a list of coded contributions; and JAMA uses a structured checklist with instructions on contributions that qualify for ICMJE authorship criteria. Honorary authorship was defined as the lack of contribution from the first ICMJE criterion (study conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data) and/or second (drafting the article or critical revision for important intellectual content) ICMJE criterion. Results  According to authors' published contributions, the number of honorary authors was highest in Annals (121/562 authors, 21.5%), followed by BMJ (46/482, 9.5%), and JAMA (3/641, 0.5%) (22 = 146.67, P<.001). The number of articles with honorary authors was 60% in Annals, 21% in BMJ, and 4% in JAMA. Honorary authors had fewer published contributions than authors who met ICMJE criteria and were positioned more toward the end of the byline. Honorary authors either lacked contributions for both ICMJE criteria (10% in Annals and 22% in BMJ) or contributions to the second ICMJE criterion (75% in Annals, 67% in BMJ, and 2 out of 3 in JAMA). Conclusions  General medical journals differed in prevalence of honorary authors according to published research contributions of named authors. Different authorship/contributorship policies and procedures should be explored as a possible explanation for the differences in contributions disclosed by authors among these journals.   相似文献   

14.
This study looked at information on ethics reporting and authorship in the "instructions to authors" section of Indian medical journals. Instructions to authors in 59 Indian medical journals were examined for guidance on ethics reporting and authorship. Guidance regarding ethics was mentioned in 43 (72.8%) journals; assent from minors was mentioned in 9 (15.2%) journals; approval from an animal ethics committee was mentioned in 10 (16.9%) journals; authorship criteria were mentioned in 38 (64.5%) journals. Authorship criteria according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors were mentioned in 35 (59.3%) journals. Guidance regarding contributors' details was mentioned in 30 (50.8%) journals. These findings suggest that many editors of Indian medical journals must upgrade their instructions to authors to include ethical requirements.  相似文献   

15.
Dickersin K  Scherer R  Suci ES  Gil-Montero M 《JAMA》2002,287(21):2772-2774
Context  It is not known whether articles with group authorship (ie, with a research group name listed as the author) are difficult to identify or whether use of group authorship may lead to problems with citation. Methods  To examine ways in which reports of controlled trials with group authorship are indexed and citations counted in bibliographic databases, we conducted a cross-sectional study in January 2000. We identified 47 controlled trials funded by the National Eye Institute and 285 associated articles. Between January and August 2000, we searched PubMed and Science Citation Index (SCI) and recorded the citation practices for these articles. Our main outcome measures were ways in which trial reports were listed in PubMed and SCI and number of citations to each report by type of authorship. Results  Of the 285 published reports identified, 126 (44%) had group authorship, 109 (38%) had modified group authorship (listing individual names plus the name of the research group), and 50 (18%) had named authors only. In PubMed, no group authors were listed in the author field (per MEDLINE rules); in SCI, group-authored reports generally were incorrectly attributed (first name on investigator list [35.3%], first name on writing committee [25.5%], contact name [16.7%], anonymous [16.7%], and other [5.9%]). Using the SCI general search, we identified citations to 16.7% of group-authored reports, compared with citations to 96.9% of reports with modified group authorship and 93.9% of citations to reports with named authors only. Other systematic search methods found that more than 98% of group-authored reports actually had been cited and that group-authored reports were cited more than other reports. Conclusions  Indexing systems are not optimally adapted to group authorship. We recommend that indexing services change their practices to include group authors in the author field to help correct the problem.   相似文献   

16.
Context  To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute. Methods  Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors. Results  One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%). Conclusions  A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.   相似文献   

17.
Context.— Editors, authors, and reviewers are influential in shaping science. The careers of women in public health have received less scrutiny than those of women in medicine and other branches of science. The performance of women as editors, authors, and reviewers in epidemiology has not been previously studied. Objective.— To examine changes over time in the representation of women at the editorial level in US epidemiology journals compared with the proportion of women authors and reviewers. Design and Setting.— Cross-sectional study of 4 US epidemiology journals, American Journal of Epidemiology, Annals of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (formerly the Journal of Chronic Diseases), for 1982, 1987, 1992, and 1994. Subjects.— Editors, authors, and reviewers for the selected years. Main Outcome Measures.— Sex of editors, authors, and reviewers. Results.— We identified 2415 reports associated with 8005 authors. One of 7 editors in chief was a woman, a position she shared with a man. For all journals, the proportion of editors who were women ranged from 5 (6.5%) of 77 in 1982 to 42 (16.3%) of 258 in 1994. Over all journals and all years, women comprised a higher proportion of authors (28.7% [2225/7743] ) compared with reviewers (26.7% [796/2982]) or editors (12.8% [89/696]). Conclusions.— Fewer women in public health hold editorial positions than are authors and reviewers. The reasons for this important discrepancy, including the possibility of a selection bias favoring men, should be further investigated.   相似文献   

18.
Context.— In a previous study, we found that masking success was higher at a journal that masked reviewers to author identity. We hypothesized that masking policy or other factors could be associated with masking success. Objectives.— To evaluate differences in success of masking reviewers to author identity at 7 biomedical journals and to identify factors associated with these differences. Design.— Written questionnaire. Participants.— Reviewers at 3 journals with a long-standing policy of masking author identity (Annals of Emergency Medicine, Epidemiology, and Journal of the American Geriatrics Society) and 4 journals without a policy of masking author identity (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Obstetrics & Gynecology, and Ophthalmology). Main Outcome Measures.— Masking success (percentage of reviewers successfully masked) and reviewer characteristics associated with masking. Results.— There was no significant difference in masking success between journals with a policy of masking (60%) and those without (58%) (P=.92). We found no association between masking success and a policy of masking when adjusted for the reviewer characteristics of age, sex, years of reviewing experience, number of articles published, number of articles reviewed, percentage of time spent in research, editorial experience, or academic rank (odds ratio [OR], 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64-2.8; P=.43). In multivariable analysis of reviewer characteristics, reviewers spending a greater percentage of time in research, the only significant predictor of masking success, were less likely to be successfully masked (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02) (P=.04). Conclusions.— Masking success appears unrelated to a journal policy of masking, but is associated with reviewers' research experience and could be affected by other characteristics. Using reviewers with less research and reviewing experience might increase masking success, but the effect on review quality is unknown.   相似文献   

19.
Rochon PA  Bero LA  Bay AM  Gold JL  Dergal JM  Binns MA  Streiner DL  Gurwitz JH 《JAMA》2002,287(21):2853-2856
Context  To compare the quality, presentation, readability, and clinical relevance of review articles published in peer-reviewed and "throwaway" journals. Methods  We reviewed articles that focused on the diagnosis or treatment of a medical condition published between January 1 and December 31, 1998, in the 5 leading peer-reviewed general medical journals and high-circulation throwaway journals. Reviewers independently assessed the methodologic and reporting quality, and evaluated each article's presentation and readability. Clinical relevance was evaluated independently by 6 physicians. Results  Of the 394 articles in our sample, 16 (4.1%) were peer-reviewed systematic reviews, 135 (34.3%) were peer-reviewed nonsystematic reviews, and 243 (61.7%) were nonsystematic reviews published in throwaway journals. The mean (SD) quality scores were highest for peer-reviewed articles (0.94 [0.09] for systematic reviews and 0.30 [0.19] for nonsystematic reviews) compared with throwaway journal articles (0.23 [0.03], F2,391 = 280.8, P<.001). Throwaway journal articles used more tables (P = .02), figures (P = .01), photographs (P<.001), color (P<.001), and larger font sizes (P<.001) compared with peer-reviewed articles. Readability scores were more often in the college or higher range for peer-reviewed journals compared with the throwaway journal articles (104 [77.0%] vs 156 [64.2%]; P = .01). Peer-reviewed article titles were judged less relevant to clinical practice than throwaway journal article titles (P<.001). Conclusions  Although lower in methodologic and reporting quality, review articles published in throwaway journals have characteristics that appeal to physician readers.   相似文献   

20.
Wager E  Middleton P 《JAMA》2002,287(21):2821-2824
Context  Technical editing supposedly improves the accuracy and clarity of journal articles. We examined evidence of its effects on research reports in biomedical journals. Methods  Subset of a systematic review using Cochrane methods, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases from earliest entries to February 2000 by using inclusive search terms; hand searching relevant journals. We selected comparative studies of the effects of editorial processes on original research articles between acceptance and publication in biomedical journals. Two reviewers assessed each study and performed independent data extraction. Results  The 11 studies on technical editing indicate that it improves the readability of articles slightly (as measured by Gunning Fog and Flesch reading ease scores), may improve other aspects of their quality, can increase the accuracy of references and quotations, and raises the quality of abstracts. Supplying authors with abstract preparation instructions had no discernible effect. Conclusions  Considering the time and resources devoted to technical editing, remarkably little is known about its effects or the effects of imposing different house styles. Studies performed at 3 journals employing relatively large numbers of professional technical editors suggest that their editorial processes are associated with increases in readability and quality of articles, but these findings may not be generalizable to other journals.   相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号