Search results for 'Authorship' (try it on Scholar)

579 found
Sort by:
See also:
Bibliography: Film Authorship in Aesthetics
  1. On Authorship, Collaboration Paisley Livingston, Paraphrasing Poetry & Somatic Style (2011). Index: Volume 69. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 69 (4).score: 30.0
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Lisa Bortolotti & Matthew Broome (2009). A Role for Ownership and Authorship in the Analysis of Thought Insertion. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 8 (2):205-224.score: 24.0
    Philosophers are interested in the phenomenon of thought insertion because it challenges the common assumption that one can ascribe to oneself the thoughts that one can access first-personally. In the standard philosophical analysis of thought insertion, the subject owns the ‘inserted’ thought but lacks a sense of agency towards it. In this paper we want to provide an alternative analysis of the condition, according to which subjects typically lack both ownership and authorship of the ‘inserted’ thoughts. We argue that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Christy Mag Uidhir (2012). Comics & Collective Authorship. In Aaron Meskin & Roy T. Cook (eds.), Art of Comics: A Philosophical Approach. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 24.0
    Most mass-art comics (e.g., “superhero” comics) are collectively produced, that is, different people are responsible for different production elements. As such, the more disparate comic production roles we begin to regard as significantly or uniquely contributory, the more difficult questions of comic authorship become, and the more we view various distinct production roles as potentially constitutive is the more we must view comic authorship as potentially collective authorship. Given the general unreliability of intuitions with respect to collective (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Christy Mag Uidhir (2011). Minimal Authorship (of Sorts). Philosophical Studies 154 (3):373-387.score: 24.0
    I propose a minimal account of authorship that specifies the fundamental nature of the author-relation and its minimal domain composition in terms of a three-place causal-intentional relation holding between agents and sort-relative works. I contrast my account with the minimal account tacitly held by most authorship theories, which is a two-place relation holding between agents and works simpliciter. I claim that only my view can ground productive and informative principled distinctions between collective production and collective authorship.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David Shaw (2011). The Authorless Paper: The ICMJE’s Definition of Authorship is Illogical and Unethical. British Medical Journal 343 (7831):999.score: 24.0
    In recent years there have been many revelations about ghost authors, who contribute to publications but are not credited, and guest authors, who do not contribute but are credited. Most medical and many other journals adhere to the authorship standards set by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which were designed in part to combat the phenomena of ghost and guest authorship. However, the current criteria set for authorship by the ICMJE have their own problems. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Corrine R. Sackett (2010). Authorship in Student-Faculty Collaborative Research: Perceptions of Current and Best Practices. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):199-215.score: 24.0
    Determining appropriate authorship recognition in student-faculty collaborative research is a complex task. In this quantitative study, responses from 1346 students and faculty in education and some social science disciplines at 36 research-intensive institutions in the United States were analyzed to provide a description of current and recommended practices for authorship in student-faculty collaborative research. The responses revealed practices and perceptions that are not aligned with ethical guidelines and a lack of consensus among respondents about appropriate practice. Faculty and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Elise Smith & Bryn Williams-Jones (2012). Authorship and Responsibility in Health Sciences Research: A Review of Procedures for Fairly Allocating Authorship in Multi-Author Studies. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 18 (2):199-212.score: 24.0
    While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Jennifer Duke-Yonge (2013). Ownership, Authorship and External Justification. Acta Analytica 28 (2):237-252.score: 24.0
    Some of the most well-known arguments against epistemic externalism come in the form of thought experiments involving subjects who acquire beliefs through anomolous means such as clairvoyance. These thought experiments purport to provide counterexamples to the reliabilist conception of justification: their subjects are intuitively epistemically unjustified, yet meet reliabilist externalist criteria for justification. In this article, I address a recent defence of externalism due to Daniel Breyer, who argues that externalists need not consider such subjects justified, since they fail to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Anne Hudson Jones (2003). Can Authorship Policies Help Prevent Scientific Misconduct? What Role for Scientific Societies? Science and Engineering Ethics 9 (2):243-256.score: 24.0
    The purpose of this article is to encourage and help inform active discussion of authorship policies among members of scientific societies. The article explains the history and rationale of the influential criteria for authorship developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, examines questions about those criteria that emerge from authorship policies adopted by several U.S. medical schools, and summarizes the arguments for replacing authorship with the contributorguarantor model. Finally, it concludes with a plea for (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Mary Rose & Karla Fischer (1995). Policies and Perspectives on Authorship. Science and Engineering Ethics 1 (4):361-370.score: 24.0
    Authorship on publications has been described as a “meal ticket” for researchers in academic settings. Given the importance of authorship, inappropriate publication credit is a pertinent ethical issue. This paper presents an overview of authorship problems and policies intended to address them. Previous work has identified three types of inappropriate authorship practices: plagiarism, giving unwarranted credit and failure to give expected credit. Guidelines from universities, journals and professional organizations provide standards about requirements of authors and may (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Darko Hren, Dario Sambunjak, Matko Marušić & Ana Marušić (2013). Medical Students' Decisions About Authorship in Disputable Situations: Intervention Study. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):641-651.score: 24.0
    In medicine, professional behavior and ethics are often rule-based. We assessed whether instruction on formal criteria of authorship affected the decision of students about authorship dilemmas and whether they perceive authorship as a conventional or moral concept. A prospective non-randomized intervention study involved 203s year medical students who did (n = 107) or did not (n = 96) received a lecture on International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria. Both groups had to read 3 (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Eugen Tarnow (1999). The Authorship List in Science: Junior Physicists' Perceptions of Who Appears and Why. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1):73-88.score: 24.0
    A questionnaire probing the distribution of authorship credit was given to postdoctoral associates (“postdocs”) in order to determine their awareness of the professional society’s ethical statement on authorship, the extent of communication with their supervisors about authorship criteria, and the appropriateness of authorship assignments on submitted papers. Results indicate a low awareness of the professional society’s ethical statement and that little communication takes place between postdocs and supervisors about authorship criteria. A substantial amount of (...) credit given to supervisors and other workers is perceived by the postdocs to violate the professional society’s ethical statement. (shrink)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Laura Welfare & Corrine Sackett (2010). Authorship in Student-Faculty Collaborative Research: Perceptions of Current and Best Practices. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (3):199-215.score: 24.0
    Determining appropriate authorship recognition in student-faculty collaborative research is a complex task. In this quantitative study, responses from 1346 students and faculty in education and some social science disciplines at 36 research-intensive institutions in the United States were analyzed to provide a description of current and recommended practices for authorship in student-faculty collaborative research. The responses revealed practices and perceptions that are not aligned with ethical guidelines and a lack of consensus among respondents about appropriate practice. Faculty and (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Muriel Bebeau & Verna Monson (2011). Authorship and Publication Practices in the Social Sciences: Historical Reflections on Current Practices. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):365-388.score: 24.0
    An historical review of authorship definitions and publication practices that are embedded in directions to authors and in the codes of ethics in the fields of psychology, sociology, and education illuminates reasonable agreement and consistency across the fields with regard to (a) originality of the work submitted, (b) data sharing, (c) human participants’ protection, and (d) conflict of interest disclosure. However, the role of the professional association in addressing violations of research or publication practices varies among these fields. Psychology (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Barton Moffatt (2011). Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship. Accountability in Research 18 (2):76-90.score: 24.0
    Although widespread throughout the biomedical sciences, the practice of honorary authorship—the listing of authors who fail to merit inclusion as authors by authorship criteria—has received relatively little sustained attention. Is there something wrong with honorary authorship, or is it only a problem when used in conjunction with other unethical authorship practices like ghostwriting? Numerous sets of authorship guidelines discourage the practice, but its ubiquity throughout biomedicine suggests that there is a need to say more about (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Alex Michalos (2010). Observations on Unacknowledged Authorship From Homer to Now. Journal of Academic Ethics 8 (4):253-258.score: 24.0
    In this essay brief sketches of three historical cases of unacknowledged authorship are offered to remind readers that unacknowledged authorship has been and still may be viewed in different ways given different contexts and purposes. Reflecting on these cases and many others that come to mind, it seems that the contemporary scene concerning unacknowledged authorship does not indicate a huge deterioration of research or publishing integrity. Following the brief historical journey, overviews of two contemporary cases are presented (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Michael Kalichman (2011). Overview: Underserved Areas of Education in the Responsible Conduct of Research: Authorship. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):335-339.score: 24.0
    In February of 2007, the Responsible Conduct of Research Education Committee of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics convened a mini-conference at the Association’s annual meeting. The purpose of the mini-conference was to examine underserved areas of education in research ethics. The mini-conference consisted of panel discussions for two topics: authorship and social responsibility. Representatives from diverse academic disciplines were invited to participate in each of the two panels. This Special Section of Science and Engineering Ethics consists of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Jason Borenstein (2011). Responsible Authorship in Engineering Fields: An Overview of Current Ethical Challenges. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):355-364.score: 24.0
    The primary aim of this article is to identify ethical challenges relating to authorship in engineering fields. Professional organizations and journals do provide crucial guidance in this realm, but this cannot replace the need for frequent and diligent discussions in engineering research communities about what constitutes appropriate authorship practice. Engineering researchers should seek to identify and address issues such as who is entitled to be an author and whether publishing their research could potentially harm the public.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. T. Prabhakar Clement (2014). Authorship Matrix: A Rational Approach to Quantify Individual Contributions and Responsibilities in Multi-Author Scientific Articles. Science and Engineering Ethics 20 (2):345-361.score: 24.0
    We propose a rational method for addressing an important question—who deserves to be an author of a scientific article? We review various contentious issues associated with this question and recommend that the scientific community should view authorship in terms of contributions and responsibilities, rather than credits. We propose a new paradigm that conceptually divides a scientific article into four basic elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. We employ these four fundamental elements to modify the well-known International Committee of Medical (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Francis Macrina (2011). Teaching Authorship and Publication Practices in the Biomedical and Life Sciences. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):341-354.score: 24.0
    Examination of a limited number of publisher’s Instructions for Authors, guidelines from two scientific societies, and the widely accepted policy document of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provided useful information on authorship practices. Three of five journals examined (Nature, Science, and the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) publish papers across a variety of disciplines. One is broadly focused on topics in medical research (New England Journal of Medicine) and one publishes research reports in a (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Matko Marušić, Jadranka Božikov, Vedran Katavić, Darko Hren, Marko Kljaković-Gašpić & Ana Marušić (2004). Authorship in a Small Medical Journal: A Study of Contributorship Statements by Corresponding Authors. Science and Engineering Ethics 10 (3):493-502.score: 24.0
    The authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are widely accepted in biomedical journals, but many studies in large and prestigious journals show that a considerable proportion of authors do not fulfill these criteria. We investigated authorship contributions in a small medical journal outside the scientific mainstream, to see if poor adherence to authorship criteria is common in biomedical journals. We analyzed statements on research contribution, as checked by the corresponding author, for individual (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Dena Plemmons (2011). A Broader Discussion of Authorship. Science and Engineering Ethics 17 (2):389-398.score: 24.0
    While it may be useful to consider the development of new topics in teaching the responsible conduct of research (RCR), it is perhaps equally important to reconsider the traditionally taught core topic areas in both more nuanced and broader ways. This paper takes the topic of authorship as an example. Through the description of two specific cases from sociocultural anthropology, ideas about credit and responsibility are examined. It is suggested that placing more focus on the array of meanings found (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Magne Nylenna, Frode Fagerbakk & Peter Kierulf (2014). Authorship: Attitudes and Practice Among Norwegian Researchers. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):53.score: 24.0
    Attitudes to, and practices of, scientific authorship vary. We have studied this variation among researchers in a university hospital and medical school in Norway.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Jesús Zamora Bonilla (2012). The Nature of Co-Authorship: A Note on Recognition Sharing and Scientific Argumentation. Synthese (1):1-12.score: 24.0
    Co-authorship of papers is very common in most areas of science, and it has increased as the complexity of research has strengthened the need for scientific collaboration. But the fact that papers have more than an author tends to complicate the attribution of merit to individual scientists. I argue that collaboration does not necessarily entail co-authorship, but that in many cases the latter is an option that individual authors might not choose, at least in principle: each author might (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Mahsa Izadinia (2014). Authorship: The Hidden Voices of Postgraduate TEFL Students in Iran. Journal of Academic Ethics 12 (4):317-331.score: 24.0
    Although an author is defined as someone who has made substantial contributions to a research study, sometimes power relations in student-supervisor collaborations play a more determining role in attribution of authorship. This article reflects the ideas of eight Iranian postgraduate Teaching English as a Foreign Language students about authorship policies and practices at their universities. The interview data indicate that the participants were not involved in authorship decisions and authorship credits were given based on their supervisors’ (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Flora Colledge, Bernice Elger & David Shaw (2013). “Conferring Authorship”: Biobank Stakeholders’ Experiences with Publication Credit in Collaborative Research. PLoS ONE 8:e76686.score: 24.0
    Background: Multi-collaborator research is increasingly becoming the norm in the field of biomedicine. With this trend comes the imperative to award recognition to all those who contribute to a study; however, there is a gap in the current “gold standard” in authorship guidelines with regards to the efforts of those who provide high quality biosamples and data, yet do not play a role in the intellectual development of the final publication. -/- Methods and findings: We carried out interviews with (...)
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Daniela Cutas & David Shaw (forthcoming). Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-Authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement. Science and Engineering Ethics:1-15.score: 24.0
    The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Thomas Erren, Michael Erren & David Shaw (2013). Peer Reviewers Can Meet Journals’ Criteria for Authorship. British Medical Journal 346:f166.score: 24.0
    This article argues that some reviewers contribute more to research than many authors, and suggests that reviewers meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship in many cases.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Barton Moffatt (2013). Orphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case Against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship. Accountability in Research 20 (2): 59-71.score: 24.0
    Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers—orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Elise Smith, Matthew Hunt & Zubin Master (2014). Authorship Ethics in Global Health Research Partnerships Between Researchers From Low or Middle Income Countries and High Income Countries. BMC Medical Ethics 15 (1):42.score: 24.0
    Over the past two decades, the promotion of collaborative partnerships involving researchers from low and middle income countries with those from high income countries has been a major development in global health research. Ideally, these partnerships would lead to more equitable collaboration including the sharing of research responsibilities and rewards. While collaborative partnership initiatives have shown promise and attracted growing interest, there has been little scholarly debate regarding the fair distribution of authorship credit within these partnerships.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Justin Solomon (2009). Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science. Science and Engineering Ethics 15 (4):467-489.score: 21.0
    This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Pascal Borry, Paul Schotsmans & Kris Dierickx (2006). Author, Contributor or Just a Signer? A Quantitative Analysis of Authorship Trends in the Field of Bioethics. Bioethics 20 (4):213–220.score: 21.0
  33. Daniel Berthold-Bond (2011). The Ethics of Authorship: Communication, Seduction, and Death in Hegel and Kierkegaard. Fordham University Press.score: 21.0
    Introduction : Rorschach tests -- A question of style -- Live or tell -- Kierkegaard's seductions -- Hegel's seductions -- Talking cures -- A penchant for disguise : the death (and rebirth) of the author in Kierkegaard and Nietzsche -- Passing over : the death of the author in Hegel -- Conclusion : the melancholy of having finished -- Aftersong : from low down.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. G. J. Dorleijn, Ralf Grüttemeier & Liesbeth Korthals Altes (eds.) (2010). Authorship Revisited: Conceptions of Authorship Around 1900 and 2000. Peeters.score: 21.0
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Sean Burke (2008/2010). The Ethics of Writing: Authorship and Legacy in Plato and Nietzsche. Edinburgh University Press.score: 21.0
  36. Sherri Irvin (2005). Appropriation and Authorship in Contemporary Art. British Journal of Aesthetics 45 (2):123-137.score: 18.0
    Appropriation art has often been thought to support the view that authorship in art is an outmoded or misguided notion. Through a thought experiment comparing appropriation art to a unique case of artistic forgery, I examine and reject a number of candidates for the distinction that makes artists the authors of their work while forgers are not. The crucial difference is seen to lie in the fact that artists bear ultimate responsibility for whatever objectives they choose to pursue through (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Eddy Nahmias (2005). Agency, Authorship, and Illusion. Consciousness and Cognition 14 (4):771-785.score: 18.0
    Daniel Wegner argues that conscious will is an illusion. I examine the adequacy of his theory of apparent mental causation and whether, if accurate, it suggests that our experience of agency and authorship should be considered illusory. I examine various interpretations of this claim and raise problems for each interpretation. I also distinguish between the experiences of agency and authorship.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Antony Aumann (2011). The ‘Death of the Author’ in Hegel and Kierkegaard: On Berthold’s 'The Ethics of Authorship'. Graduate Faculty Philosophy Journal 32 (2):435-447.score: 18.0
    In The Ethics of Authorship, Daniel Berthold depicts G. W. F. Hegel and Søren Kierkegaard as endorsing two postmodern principles. The first is an ethical ideal. Authors should abdicate their traditional privileged position as arbiters of their texts’ meaning. They should allow readers to determine this meaning for themselves. Only by doing so will they help readers attain genuine selfhood. The second principle is a claim about language. To wit, language cannot express an author’s thoughts. I argue that if (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Michael W. Hickson & Thomas M. Lennon (2009). The Real Significance of Bayle's Authorship of the Avis. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 17 (1):191 – 205.score: 18.0
    Did Bayle write the Avis aux réfugiés? Although the long debate over this question might not be over, we are convinced that strong probability supports Gianluca Mori's position that Bayle was indeed its sole author. We are also convinced, however, that the significance that Mori assigns to Bayle's authorship gets it exactly the wrong way around, for while Mori is right that the Avis is not only consistent but also representative of the views espoused by Bayle in his subsequent (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Paisley Livingston (2008). Authorship Redux: On Some Recent and Not-so-Recent Work in Literary Theory. Philosophy and Literature 32 (1):pp. 191-197.score: 18.0
    Did Roland Barthes, Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, or other "poststructuralist" theorists writing in the wake of May '68 come up with any good ideas about authorship and related topics in the philosophy of literature? The three volumes under review have a common point of departure in that broad question, but offer a number of contrasting responses to it. In what follows I describe and assess some of the various perspectives on offer in these 700 or so pages. The short (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Adina L. Roskies (2012). Don't Panic: Self-Authorship Without Obscure Metaphysics1. Philosophical Perspectives 26 (1):323-342.score: 18.0
    In this paper I attempt to respond to the worries of the source incompatibilist, and try to sketch a naturalistically plausible, compatibilist notion of self-authorship and control that I believe captures important aspects of the folk intuitions regarding freedom and responsibility. It is my hope to thus offer those moved by source incompatibilist worries a reason not to adopt what P.F. Strawson called “the obscure and panicky metaphysics of Libertarianism” (P. F. Strawson, 1982) or the panic-inducing moral austerity of (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. J. Westfall (2012). Who is the Author of The Point of View? Issues of Authorship in the Posthumous Kierkegaard. Philosophy and Social Criticism 38 (6):569-589.score: 18.0
    Kierkegaard scholars have made much of Kierkegaard’s posthumously published The Point of View for My Work as an Author, and the work does seem to provide a key to interpreting Kierkegaard’s infamous authorial difficulties – not the least of which is the meaning of pseudonymity in his work. Considerations of the book’s authorship itself are, however, exceptionally rare. In this article, I open an inquiry into issues of authorship that arise within the work, both in terms of what (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Luca Ferrero (2003). An Elusive Challenge to the Authorship Account: Commentary on Lawlor's "Elusive Reasons". Philosophical Psychology 16 (4):565 – 577.score: 18.0
    Lawlor argues that social psychological studies present a challenge to the authorship account of first-person authority. Taking the deliberative stance does not guarantee that self- ascriptions are authoritative, for self-ascriptions might be based on elusive reasons and thus lack agential authority (i.e. they are no guide to the subject's future conduct). I argue that Lawlor's challenge is not successful. I claim that we can make sense of the nature and importance of agential authority only within the framework of the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Sarah E. Oberlander & Robert J. Spencer (2006). Graduate Students and the Culture of Authorship. Ethics and Behavior 16 (3):217 – 232.score: 18.0
    In the last 50 years, multiauthored publications have become more prevalent, given the increasing number of collaborative, interdisciplinary, multicenter research studies. The determination of authorship credit and order is a difficult process, especially for graduate students, whose disadvantaged power position in research settings increases their vulnerability to exploitation. The American Psychological Association has published ethical standards for determining authorship credit, but the power difference inherent in the student-faculty relationship may complicate this ethical dilemma. The authors reviewed a number (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Daniel Wegner, On the Feeling of Doing: Dysphoria and the Implicit Modulation of Authorship Ascription.score: 18.0
    The experience of authorship arises when we feel that observed effects (e.g., the onset of a light) are caused by our own actions (e.g., pushing a switch). This study tested whether dysphoric persons’ authorship ascription can be modulated implicitly in a situation in which the exclusivity of the cause of effects is ambiguous. In line with the idea that depressed individuals’ self-schemata include general views of uncontrollability, in a subliminal priming task we observed that dysphoric (compared with nondysphoric) (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. D. B. Resnik & Z. Master (2011). Authorship Policies of Bioethics Journals. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (7):424-428.score: 18.0
    Inappropriate authorship is a common problem in biomedical research and may be becoming one in bioethics, due to the increase in multiple authorship. This paper investigates the authorship policies of bioethics journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for researchers who submit articles for publication, which can help deter inappropriate authorship. It was found that 63.3% of bioethics journals provide no guidance on authorship; 36.7% provide guidance on which contributions merit authorship, 23.3% provide (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. M. J. Dyck (2013). Misused Honorary Authorship is No Excuse for Quantifying the Unquantifiable. Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):514-514.score: 18.0
    Kovacs argues that honorary authorship and regarding each co-author of multi-authored papers as if they were sole authors when the performance of researchers is being evaluated by their publications mean that we should require authors to identify what proportion of each publication should be attributed to each co-author. Even if such attributions could be made reliably, such a change should not be made. Contributions to authorship cannot be validly quantified, and the relative merits of different publications are also (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. 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.score: 18.0
    The current use of citation-based metrics to evaluate the research output of individual researchers is highly discriminatory because they are uniformly applied to authors of single-author articles as well as contributors of multi-author papers. In the latter case, these quantitative measures are counted, as if each contributor were the single author of the full article. In this way, each and every contributor is assigned the full impact-factor score and all the citations that the article has received. This has a multiplication (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Henry S. Leonard (1959). Authorship and Purpose. Philosophy of Science 26 (4):277-294.score: 18.0
    This paper approaches a theory relating authorship, meaning and purpose by semiformalized developments of two "presupposed theories": of purposeful behavior and of sign-reading. The theory of purposeful behavior is made to rest upon two undefined predicates. `Wt(a,p,q)' abbreviates the claim that at time t, person a works at bringing it about that p in order to bring it about that q. `Bt(a,p)' abbreviates the claim that at time t, person a brings it about that p. A number of definitions (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 579