Is it difficult to categorize the roles an author in a multi-authored paper had? Like for example (analysis, experiments, review, etc.), to be introduced in the affiliations of the authors?
In principle, it could be a good idea. However, as Tiia notes, it could also result in a very complicated and bureaucratic categorization system.
What is sure is that the current system is flawed, and the choice of the ordering of authors of a scientific paper changes too much across different disciplines.
What is worse, even if authors are listed alphabetically, still the first author is almost automatically perceived as the main contributor to the work, and the last author as the group leader.
With the inevitable consequences when applying for a grant or a tenure...
It is not always possible to identify very clearly who did what in co-authored papers: e.g. maybe one author wrote most of the literature review, but co-authors also added a couple of citations or rewrote some sentences, so, would you also add shares to every part (e.g. 80-15-5 in the literature review but 10-20-70 in methods and 4-89-7% in data collection...)? Would you be interested in such information as a reader of other authors' articles?
In principle, it could be a good idea. However, as Tiia notes, it could also result in a very complicated and bureaucratic categorization system.
What is sure is that the current system is flawed, and the choice of the ordering of authors of a scientific paper changes too much across different disciplines.
What is worse, even if authors are listed alphabetically, still the first author is almost automatically perceived as the main contributor to the work, and the last author as the group leader.
With the inevitable consequences when applying for a grant or a tenure...
I agree well with Tiia's point. Publishing could, however, probably initially be complicated and the authors will adapt with time as their agreements and contributions will be better and more organized. How the readers will deal with the system is a scenario worth really thinking about. I agree with Sabino that there is a considerable, original flaw with the system, that's why I posted the question in the first place!! :)
I believe that detailing the contribution of each author will go a long way towards eliminating dishonesty in publishing but I think that editors would first have to define who they consider authors as perceptions differ from person to person and among institutions..
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals