Search Results

The issue of whether or not merely providing data for a project constitutes "authorship" is a thorny one. … Many medical journals, for example, are asserting that merely having generated data is not grounds for authorship all on its own. …

At present, I don't think merely having a helpful suggestion, even if it launches a fairly significant line of inquiry, merits a paper authorship. …

For example, in my field it is routine to have very large authorship lists. … going to stick to, come hell or high water, and they don't think you qualify "Stretching" to include you would also necessitate the inclusion of a large number of other people whose qualification for authorship …

The content of those meetings is largely going to be the answer to your question, and we can't really know the content of those meetings. There's a case to be made that those discussions helped form t …

health: Authorship confers credit and has important academic, social, and financial implications. … Authorship also implies responsibility and accountability for published work. …

Indeed, doing so violates a large number of authorship guidelines. I'd also like to contest one of your cons: "More authors means less credit for the work per author." …

These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. … The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criterion #s 2 or 3. …

Explaining to your students the authorship standards for your field is essentially, but once that's done, whether or not a supervisor is an author should flow naturally from those standards. …

Due to time constraints I would not be able to do this on my own so I do not have many alternatives, how should I proceed? As the comments note, you have essentially answered your own question - …

In this case, I think whether or not to include them as an author comes down to the authorship criteria of the paper - i.e. did they make substantial contributions to the work, etc. … It's a bad idea to use authorship as a reward, and it's a similarly bad idea to use authorship as a punishment. It shouldn't carry moral weight. …

Is there a general obligation to make sure your papers are in the authorship order for your field: I think there is an obligation to abide by the norms of your field - while there is some give and take … if you're publishing outside your field (for example, some biomedical researchers and some CS researchers working together) that might mean that some of your work uses a different authorship scheme, in …

It just doubles down on the absurdity, further muddies the concept of authorship, and is essentially indefensible by any authorship criteria you could come up with. Be the change you want to see. …

I've very rarely encountered a journal or editor that was okay with major changes in authorship after a revision, and expecially rare one that is alright with the removal of an author. …

My first stop would be checking if the journal has any particular authorship policies. … Or, if the authorship list is small enough, see if there's a clever ordering of author names that gets everyone what they need (it happens). …

In my field (Epidemiology) I would always assume that the authorship is appearing in the "Most important work first, PI/major senior contributor last, others in the middle" authorship scheme, but it varies …