Propose a discovery or hypothesis for the first time is important in science. Frequently, pioneering research is published in abstracts of scientific meetings (for example, the abstracts of the Society for Neuroscience). In these meetings, new, preliminary and / or controversial ideas are more welcome than in the journals and they are defended face to face...
Therefore, the publication of the title and the date of the abstract in the references of a paper is very important.
Is this a good reason to convince reviewers that they should accept abstracts in the references?
Why do some reviewers not accept this easily?
How many publications have really been withdrawn or rejected because of disagreements on this issue?
Hi,
The mention of an abstract in the reference is important, mostly because not always a full research paper follows this abstract, and it is well known that abstracts are rarely cited, and if the abstract is not mentioned in any reference, its priority could be lost.
It is difficult to say how many papers were rejected on this issue , or why some reviewers do not accept this easily, maybe they are not aware what a rejection of this type of reference could cause.
Most meeting abstracts are very underdeveloped both conceptually in terms of new ideas and in terms of methods descriptions.
I visualise that this is the basic point to cite abstract & Title with References for an Article to review Research papers for Readers,Academician, Researchers & so on.
Distributing a full paper is far better than an abstract in terms of attempting to claim precedence of academic ideas.
This holds for fully refereed and edited conference proceedings volumes and Working Paper/Discussion Paper/Research Report series, especially in highly regarded institutions.
Regarding patents, trademarks, trade secrets, and other intellectual property items with potentially commercial prospects, there are different outlets, such as the Patents and Trademark offices for states, nations, regions, and worldwide.
Thank you for your relevant contribution to this issue, Michael. What about the abstracts that are not edited or are weakly edited? ¿What should be the fair behavior of the researchers regarding this issue?
This can not be only an issue of administrators of journals or scientific societies...We are all responsible for the democratization of science, aren't we?
I think NO, because, copyright depends on a published paper not presenting an abstract sir.
Thank you very much for asking this question.
Emad
To Juan Fernando Gomez-Molina:
It is doubtful that any abstract would enable a claim for historical precedence to be validated.
Among other reasons, Abstracts are unlikely to be edited or peer reviewed.
Well, perhaps, by agreement (I am not sure about that), honors and scientific priority usually go to the first to publish a new finding (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_priority). However, the true discoverer of XYZ should be (ideally) the one who can show any evidence of being the first in discoverof XYZ. The evidence can be a publication in a scientific peer-review journal but also it can be any other form of evidence, like publication in a meeting or even a description in a personal notebook.
The first in having a scientific idea is not the first in publishing the idea in a journal...is just the one that can show scientifically that he had that scientific idea first.
As a sociological phenomena, the "Matthew effect" describes how eminent scientists will often get more credit than unknown researchers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect) but, again, the history of science should be based on evidence/facts, not in sociological effects, copyrights, peer-reviews or human formalisms...The history of science should be the history of the true discoverers or thinkers, not the history of writers of papers...to me that is clear. Please let me know if you think in a different way ...
Proof of being the first to think of an innovative idea is a necessary though not sufficient condition to claim ownership.
The creation, development and publication of a novel idea are different stages of a claim to ownership.
In the intellectual property fields of patents, trademarks and copyright, ownership depends almost entirely on who managed to claim it first legally.
Thank you for your contribution, Michael John.
Ok, you probably have study all of this deeply, so I could accept that from a legal (and/or the intellectual property) point of view , patents, trademarks and copyright, ownership may perhaps depend formally (by agreement of legislators) on who managed to claim it first legally.
But from a scientific or history of science point of view, facts are facts..."being the first to think of an innovative idea" is just this: "being the first to think of an innovative idea". Historians, scientists and researchers should be as rigorous as possible in this difference...comercial, technical, legal or administrative labels are other thing.
I take your point, but it is difficult to separate the scientific ownership from legal issues, which are based on codified rules and regulations.
As is ownership of an intellectual idea, commercial or not.
Ownership of intellectual property, such as the publication of a novel idea or approach to a problem, in a published forum, such as a fully edited and refereed journal, conference proceedings volume, or book chapter, will depend on how the discipline acknowledges precedence.
If two academics claim ownership simultaneously, recorded history suggests that the more well-known academic will be awarded ownership.
I appreciate your views...probably different views will be generated by researchers themselves, more directly in charge to produce the discovery, invention or scientific idea...
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing