Search

Yazarlık anlaşmazlıkları, akademik dünyada öğrenci-danışman ilişkisinde ortaya çıkabilmektedir. “Danışman teze dayanan bir makaleye doğrudan yazar olarak eklenmeli mi?”, “Makalede ilk yazar öğrenci mi yoksa danışman mı olmalı?”, “Birden fazla yazar olduğunda yazar sıralaması akademik unvanlara göre mi belirlenmeli?” veya benzeri sorular, yüksek sesle dillendirilmese de öğrenci-danışman ilişkisinde akla gelebilmektedir. Yazar, çalışmanın ortaya çıkarılmasına “yazarlık sıfatını hak edecek düzeyde katkısı olan” kişi veya kişileri ifade eder. Dolayısı ile makalede sadece yazarlık sıfatını hak edecek düzeyde katkısı olan kişiler yazar olarak belirtilmelidir. Yazar sıralaması da yazarlık sıfatını hak edecek düzeyde katkı yapanların “katkısı oranına” göre en yüksekten en düşüğe doğru sıralanmalıdır. Bu sıralama, yazarların idari veya akademik unvanı dikkate alınarak değiştirilmemelidir. “Yazarlık sıfatını hak edecek düzeyde katkı” sağlanıp saplanmadığı nasıl belirlenecektir?”. Bu soru, CRediT: Katkı Sunanları Belirleme Taksonomisi ile net bir yanıta kavuşmuştur. CRediT, araştırma ve yayına katkıda bulunanların süreçte oynadıkları rolleri belirlemek için kullanılan 14 katkı çeşidini içeren bir taksonomidir. Bu katkı çeşitleri; “Kavramsal Tasarım, Veri Toplama/Literatür Taraması, Analiz, Araştırma, Finansman, Proje Yürütücülüğü, Beşerî ve Fiziksel Unsurları Sağlama, Yazılım Desteği, Danışmanlık ve Liderlik, Veri Doğrulama, Görselleştirme, Metnin Yazımı, Metnin Geliştirilmesi ve Tashihi” şeklinde sıralanmaktadır. Bu katkılardan her biri, katkı sahibinin emeğini temsil etmektedir. Yazar olarak anılabilmek için bu rollerden en az üçünde katkı sağlamış olmak gereklidir. Çalışmalarda yazarların katkı oranı, İSNAD Atıf Sistemi’nde önerildiği üzere; “Araştırmanın Tasarımı (CRediT 1), Veri Toplanması (CRediT 2), Araştırma - Veri Analizi- Doğrulama (CRediT 3-4-6-11), Makalenin Yazımı (CRediT 12-13) ile Metnin Geliştirilmesi ve Tashihi (CRediT 14)” başlıkları altında puanlanabilir. Çalışma için sağlanan “Finansman ve Destekler (CRediT 5)” de metinde mutlaka belirtilmelidir. Çalışmaya yazarlığı hak edecek düzeyde katkı sağlamayan kişi veya kurumlara ise isimleri anılarak teşekkür edilir. Yazarlar, çalışmanın hazırlanmasında yapay zekâ destekli teknolojileri kullanmışlarsa bu teknolojileri nasıl kullandıklarını belirtmeleri de faydalı olacaktır. Bunların kullanımına dair kriterler şu an tüm dünyada tartışılmaya devam etmektedir. Bu tür anlaşmazlıkları önlemek için açık ve net yazarlık kriterlerinin belirlenmesi önem taşımaktadır. Bu amaçla İSNAD Atıf Sistemi’nin 2024 yılında yayımlanacak üçüncü edisyonuna “Yazarlık Katkılarını Belirleme” başlığı eklenecektir.

Copyright of Eskiyeni is the property of Anadolu Ilahiyat Akademisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract The study extends the conversation on the effect that co-authorship has on the citation impact of papers by analyzing the short-term advantage of co-authored papers. The results suggest that co-authored papers have a higher short-term impact than single-authored ones in all scientific domains. The study adds insights on the use of the immediacy index as an alternative indicator to evaluate the short-term competitive advantage of co-authored papers concerning the number of citations they attract. Furthermore, the study shows the efficacy of the immediacy index in comparing the short-term impact of different groups.

Bibliometric data are relatively simple and describe objective processes of publishing articles and citing others. It seems quite straightforward to define reasonable measures of a researcher's productivity, research quality, or overall performance based on these data. Why do we still have no acceptable bibliometric measures of scientific performance? Instead, there are hundreds of indicators with nobody knowing how to use them. At the same time, an increasing number of researchers and some research fields have been excluded from the standard bibliometric analysis to avoid manifestly contradictive conclusions. I argue that the current biggest problem is the inadequate rule of credit allocation for multiple authored articles in mainstream bibliometrics. Clinging to this historical choice excludes any systematic and logically consistent bibliometrics-based evaluation of researchers, research groups, and institutions. During the last 50 years, several authors have called for a change. Apparently, there are no serious methodologically justified or evidence-based arguments in the favor of the present system. However, there are intractable social, psychological, and economical issues that make adoption of a logically sound counting system almost impossible.

In most scientific communities, the order of author names on a publication serves to assign credit and responsibility. Unless authors are presented in alphabetical order, it is assumed that the first author contributes the most and the last author is the driving force, both intellectually and financially, behind the research. Many, but not all, journals individually delineate what it means to be a contributing author and the nature of each author’s role. But what does this mean when a paper has co-first authors? How are academic librarians going to handle questions surrounding co-first authorship in an era in which author metrics are important for career advancement and tenure? In this commentary, the authors look at the growing trend of co-first authorship and what this means for database searchers.

Aim: The present study aims at teaching the right citation models in scientific publications by top authors from Iranian universities of medical sciences in 2017, considering the relationship between moral development and self-control variables and model of "citation to multi-authored papers" in these articles. Background: Multi-authorship increases the amount of self-citation and also increases the likelihood of being cited by others. Methods: This study is of the applied scientometrics and correlation (model presentation) studies type. The research population in the first part of this study includes all the authors who had an H-index of 10 or more in the scientific databases of 2017. The sample size at this stage was 110, selected by systematic random sampling. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0. Results: The results of regression analysis based on the concurrent method indicated that the regression model is significant. The coefficient of determination is 0.096 and the F ratio is 5.650, which are significant at the level of p <0.001. In this regression model, the variables of the level of moral development (β = -5.801, p <0.001) and self-control (p < 0.001, β = -0.253) have significant predictive power and can be considered as predictors of behavioral modeling in citing "multi-authored papers". Conclusion: Based on the results, teaching how to avoid blindly citing the "multi-authored papers", which is regarded as a kind of "citation deviation", can, to some extent, lead to strengthening citation indexes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Various multi-authorship indices have been proposed in the literature, however, there is a continuous discussion in the scientific community which multi-authorship index performs better for the ranking of authors. So far, multi-authorship indices are assessed on very small datasets mostly single authors or the publication record of less than 10 authors. Furthermore, the indices are evaluated on different datasets, making it difficult to assess the true contribution and importance of each multi-authorship index over the others. To identify the individual performance of each multi-authorship index, we employ a comprehensive dataset of Civil Engineering domain, rank the authors according to each index and calculate the correlation between the ranked lists obtained by these indices. It is found that the correlation values vary between very strong correlation and very weak correlation and the negative correlation also exists between some of the indices. Secondly, to evaluate the ranking, the occurrence of award winners is found in the author ranked lists of these indices. The award winners of four most renowned societies of Civil Engineering were considered as benchmark. In top 10% of the ranked list, gf-index remained successful in bringing most of the awardees i.e. around 67% of total awardees. Overall, none of the multi-authorship index remained successful in bringing 100% of award winners in the list of top ranked authors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to extend the conversation about the correlation between collaboration and citation impact in articles in Information Science & Library Science journals by analyzing this correlation’s behavior using a power scaling law approach. 28,131 articles that received 215,693 citations were analyzed. The number of these articles that were published through collaboration accounts for 69%. In general, the scaling exponent of multi-authored articles, both international and domestic, increases over time while the exponent of single-authored papers decreases. The citation impact and collaboration patterns exhibit a power law correlation with a scaling exponent of 1.34 ± 0.02. Citations to multi-authored articles increased 21.34 or 2.53 times each time the number of multi-authored papers doubled. The Matthew Effect is stronger for multi-authored papers than for single-authored. The scaling exponent for the power law relationship of domestic multi-authored papers was 1.35 ± 0.02. The citations to domestic multi-authored articles increased 21.35 or 2.55 times each time the number of domestic multi-authored articles doubled. Contrary to previous studies we found that the Matthew Effect is stronger for domestic multi-authored papers than for international multi-authored ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the 'editing service', so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, 'editing services' often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by 'editing services' should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end 'editing services'. In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Academic cognition and intelligence are 'socially distributed'; instead of dwelling inside the single mind of an individual academic or a few academics, they are spread throughout the different minds of all academics. In this article, some mechanisms have been developed that systematically bring together these fragmented pieces of cognition and intelligence. These mechanisms jointly form a new authoring method called 'crowd-authoring', enabling an international crowd of academics to co-author a manuscript in an organized way. The article discusses this method, addressing the following question: What are the main mechanisms needed for a large collection of academics to collaborate on the authorship of an article? This question is addressed through a developmental endeavour wherein 101 academics of educational technology from around the world worked together in three rounds by email to compose a short article. Based on this endeavour, four mechanisms have been developed: a) a mechanism for finding a crowd of scholars; b) a mechanism for managing this crowd; c) a mechanism for analyzing the input of this crowd; and d) a scenario for software that helps automate the process of crowd-authoring. The recommendation is that crowd-authoring ought to win the attention of academic communities and funding agencies, because, given the well-connected nature of the contemporary age, the widely and commonly distributed status of academic intelligence and the increasing value of collective and democratic participation, large-scale multi-authored publications are the way forward for academic fields and wider academia in the 21st century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to explore the country productivity, collaboration behaviour and citation impact of ICT4D researchers by examining all 378 articles published in the Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries (EJISDC) over a 14‐year period. Data were collected from the Inspec database. The most active countries and regions were identified by analysing the author affiliation details. The contributions of developing countries were compared to developed countries. The trend in the EJISDC is towards collaborative research involving 250 (66.14%) articles with multiple authors and 128 (33.86%) articles with single authors. Articles by authors from the same institution accounted for 32.01% of jointly authored articles. National or domestic collaboration accounted for 173 (45.77%) articles and international collaboration accounted for 77 (20.37%) articles. Of the 69 countries represented in the EJISDC, 51 countries collaborated globally. Regional distribution of authors showed that Africa had the strongest representation, followed by Asia and North America. Between 17.83% and 20.87% of developing countries contributed articles to the EJISDC. The results of the study show that for this journal, single‐authored articles are cited more often than multi‐authored articles in Google Scholar. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Highlights: [•] Authors in biochemistry had on average twice the h-index of those in economics, anthropology and water resources. [•] Biochemists had higher expectations than other disciplines about the number of articles required for hire and promotion. [•] Biochemists more strongly valued interdisciplinary publishing, and felt the cutting edge of their science was clearer. [•] Anthropologists exhibited a weaker relationship between h-index and the number of years since their first publication. [•] H-index was more strongly related to years since first publication for physical anthropology than for cultural anthropology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Business Economics / Zeitschrift für Betriebswirtschaft is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Abstract: The paper reviews the literature on disciplinary credit assignment practices, and presents the results of a longitudinal study of credit assignment practices in the fields of economics, high energy physics, and information science. The practice of alphabetization of authorship is demonstrated to vary significantly between the fields. A slight increase is found to have taken place in economics during the last 30 years (1978–2007). A substantial decrease is found to have taken place in information science during the same period. High energy physics is found to be characterised by a high and stable share of alphabetized multi-authorships during the investigated period (1990–2007). It is important to be aware of such disciplinary differences when conducting bibliometric analyses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The present study aims at teaching the right citation models in scientific publications by top authors from Iranian universities of medical sciences in 2017, considering the relationship between moral development and self-control variables and model of "citation to multi-authored papers" in these articles., Background: Multi-authorship increases the amount of self-citation and also increases the likelihood of being cited by others., Methods: This study is of the applied scientometrics and correlation (model presentation) studies type. The research population in the first part of this study includes all the authors who had an H-index of 10 or more in the scientific databases of 2017. The sample size at this stage was 110, selected by systematic random sampling. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 16.0., Results: The results of regression analysis based on the concurrent method indicated that the regression model is significant. The coefficient of determination is 0.096 and the F ratio is 5.650, which are significant at the level of p <0.001. In this regression model, the variables of the level of moral development (β = -5.801, p <0.001) and self-control (p < 0.001, β = -0.253) have significant predictive power and can be considered as predictors of behavioral modeling in citing "multi-authored papers"., Conclusion: Based on the results, teaching how to avoid blindly citing the "multi-authored papers", which is regarded as a kind of "citation deviation", can, to some extent, lead to strengthening citation indexes., (©2020 RIGLD, Research Institute for Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases.)