Response to the commentaries of Melissa S Anderson and Murray J Dyck

Journal of Medical Ethics 39 (8):515-516 (2013)
Abstract
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)
DOI 10.1136/medethics-2012-101016
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history
Request removal from index
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 27,658
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
The Belmont Report.Tom L. Beauchamp - 2008 - In Ezekiel J. Emanuel (ed.), The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. Oxford University Press. pp. 149--55.

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Response to Maarten Van Dyck's Commentary.Paolo Palmieri - 2009 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (3):319-321.
Peer Commentary: Response to de Quincey. Various - 2006 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 13 (4):13-36.
Response to Commentaries.J. G. Taylor - 1998 - Consciousness and Cognition 7 (2):216-237.
Money: Motivation, Metaphors, and Mores.Stephen E. G. Lea & Paul Webley - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (2):196-204.

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-10-05

Total downloads

5 ( #598,106 of 2,169,416 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #345,460 of 2,169,416 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums