David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):515-516 (2013)
Anderson and Dyck claim that the current trend of almost exclusively using citation-based evaluative metrics to assess the research output of scholars is unsound. I agree with them in this, but I feel that, for practical reasons, this system will not disappear in the near future, so we must concentrate on making it fairer. Both commentators doubt whether numerically expressing each contributor's relative contribution is feasible. I admit that an important precondition for this task is the possibility of an informed, democratic debate among equals about the relative contribution of each contributor to the article. Mechanisms should be established to protect vulnerable researchers in the academic field in the same way as safeguards exist today to protect vulnerable research participants. Theoretically, however, I think that the fair allocation of authorship credit is possible, and much of this task is already being performed routinely when contributors determine the order of their names in the byline, being well aware of the widespread assumption that this order mostly mirrors the order of their relative contributions. All they would have to do as an additional task is to express this order in numbers. If they cannot reach a consensus, they could always choose not to express their relative contribution in numbers, in which case the presumption would be that they contributed equally. My proposal could, at best, make the system fairer and, at worst, not reduce the options that evaluators already have
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
J. Kovacs (2013). Honorary Authorship Epidemic in Scholarly Publications? How the Current Use of Citation-Based Evaluative Metrics Make (Pseudo)Honorary Authors From Honest Contributors of Every Multi-Author Article. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):509-512.
Tom L. Beauchamp (2008). The Belmont Report. In Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.), The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford University Press 149--55.
T. Faunce (2004). Supporting Whistleblowers in Academic Medicine: Training and Respecting the Courage of Professional Conscience. Journal of Medical Ethics 30 (1):40.
M. J. Dyck (2013). Misused Honorary Authorship is No Excuse for Quantifying the Unquantifiable. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):514-514.
M. S. Anderson (2013). Commentary on 'Honorary Authorship Epidemic in Scholarly Publications? How the Current Use of Citation-Based Evaluative Metrics Make (Pseudo)Honorary Authors From Honest Contributors of Every Multiauthor Article.'. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):513-513.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Ronald M. Burrows (1904). Anderson's Asia Minor Asia Minor. By J. G. C. Anderson. (Murray's Handy Classical Maps, General Editor, G. B. Grundy.) Murray, 1903. 2s. Cloth, Is. Net, Paper. [REVIEW] The Classical Review 18 (02):122-125.
Mary Beth Foglia, Robert Pearlman, Melissa Bottrell, Jane Altemose & Ellen Fox (2009). Response to Open Peer Commentaries for “Ethical Challenges Within Veterans Administration Healthcare Facilities: Perspectives of Managers, Clinicians, Patients, and Ethics Committee Chairpersons”. American Journal of Bioethics 9 (4):3-4.
Timothy D. Hotze, Kavita Shah, Emily E. Anderson & Matthew K. Wynia (2011). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “'Doctor, Would You Prescribe a Pill to Help Me…?'A National Survey of Physicians on Using Medicine for Human Enhancement”. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (1):W1 - W3.
Melissa S. Anderson (2007). Collective Openness and Other Recommendations for the Promotion of Research Integrity. Science and Engineering Ethics 13 (4):387-394.
Paolo Palmieri (2009). Response to Maarten Van Dyck's Commentary. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):319-321.
Melissa S. Anderson (2011). Research Misconduct and Misbehavior. In Tricia Bertram Gallant (ed.), Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct and Empowering Change in Higher Education. Routledge
Various (2006). Peer Commentary: Response to de Quincey. Journal of Consciousness Studies 13 (4):13-36.
Samuel M. Brown, C. Gregory Elliott & Robert Paine (2013). Response to Open Peer Commentaries on “Withdrawal of Nonfutile Life Support After Attempted Suicide”. American Journal of Bioethics: 13 (3):W3 - W5.
Mark A. Rothstein & Abigail B. Shoben (2013). An Unbiased Response to the Open Peer Commentaries on “Does Consent Bias Research?”. American Journal of Bioethics 13 (4):W1 - W4.
Corey W. Dyck (2009). Review: Guyer, Knowledge, Reason, and Taste: Kant's Response to Hume. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Social Criticism 35 (5):613-619.
D. P. Baker (2003). Morality, Structure, Transcendence and Theism: A Response to Melissa Lane's Reading of Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 54 (1):33-48.
Thomas Talbott (2001). Universalism and the Supposed Oddity of Our Earthly Life: Reply to Michael Murray. Faith and Philosophy 18 (1):102-109.
J. G. Taylor (1998). Response to Commentaries. Consciousness and Cognition 7 (2):216-237.
Stephen E. G. Lea & Paul Webley (2006). Money: Motivation, Metaphors, and Mores. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (2):196-204.
Added to index2012-10-05
Total downloads4 ( #548,450 of 1,792,061 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #344,915 of 1,792,061 )
How can I increase my downloads?