12 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Barton Moffatt (Mississippi State University)
  1. Barton Moffatt (forthcoming). Research Funding and Authorship: Does Grant Winning Count Towards Authorship Credit? Journal of Medical Ethics:2012-101315.
    It is unclear whether or not grant winning should count towards authorship credit in the sciences. In this paper, I argue that under certain circumstances grant winning can count for credit as an author on subsequent works. It is a mistake to think that grant winning is always irrelevant to the correct attribution of authorship.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Barton Moffatt (2013). Orphan Papers and Ghostwriting: The Case Against the ICMJE Criterion of Authorship. Accountability in Research 20 (2): 59-71.
    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  
  3. Barton Moffatt (2013). The Many Faces of Biological Information. Metascience 22 (2):379-382.
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Barton Moffatt (2011). Conflations in the Causal Account of Information Undermine the Parity Thesis. Philosophy of Science 78 (2):284-302.
    The received view in philosophy of biology is that there is a well-understood, philosophically rigorous account of information—causal information. I argue that this view is mistaken. Causal information is fatally undermined by misinterpretations and conflations between distinct independent accounts of information. As a result, philosophical arguments based on causal information are deeply flawed. I end by briefly considering what a correct application of the relevant accounts of information would look like in the biological context.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Barton Moffatt (2011). How Authorship Guidelines in Bioethics Can Ensure Fairness and Accountability. American Journal of Bioethics 11 (10):26 - 27.
    The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 10, Page 26-27, October 2011.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Barton Moffatt (2011). Neurobiology Is Not Destiny. AJOB Neuroscience 2 (3):48-49.
  7. Barton Moffatt (2011). Responsible Authorship: Why Researchers Must Forgo Honorary Authorship. Accountability in Research 18 (2):76-90.
    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 honorary authorship. Despite its general (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Barton Moffatt (2010). Alternate Accounts of Rationality Invalidate Kaposy's Argument. American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 1 (4):43-44.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Barton Moffatt (2010). Not All Human Subjects Research Is Exceptional. American Journal of Bioethics 10 (8):62-63.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Barton Moffatt, “A Reexamination of Biological Information From the Perspective of Practice”. Society of Philosophy of Science in Practice Conference Paper (2009).
    Much of the debate surrounding the concept of information in biology centers on the question of whether or not biological systems ‘really’ carry information. The criterion for determining if a system “really” carries information is whether or not there is a principled, theoretical account of information that captures the relevant biological usages. If biological systems do not carry information in this sense, information talk is termed merely heuristic and dismissed as philosophically uninteresting. To date, all three proposed theoretical accounts of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Barton Moffatt & Carl Elliott (2007). Ghost Marketing: Pharmaceutical Companies and Ghostwritten Journal Articles. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 50 (1):18-31.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Barton Moffatt & Ronald N. Giere (2003). Distributed Cognition: Where the Cognitive and the Social Merge. Social Studies of Science 33 (2):301-310.
    Among the many contested boundaries in science studies is that between the cognitive and the social. Here, we are concerned to question this boundary from a perspective within the cognitive sciences based on the notion of distributed cognition. We first present two of many contemporary sources of the notion of distributed cognition, one from the study of artificial neural networks and one from cognitive anthropology. We then proceed to reinterpret two well-known essays by Bruno Latour, ‘Visualization and Cognition: Thinking with (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation