Some researchers consider that the fewer are authors, the better is the work done. Some examples are even stunning: A paper signed by a single author visibly showing a work of several years on hundred of sites truly based on a solid multidisciplinary team is accepted by major newspapers, and even details like in this example:
Author Contributions ss = Super Scientist
Conceptualization: ss
Formal analysis: ss
Funding acquisition: ss
Investigation: ss
Methodology: ss
Software: ss
Visualization: ss
Writing ± original draft: ss
Writing ± review & editing: ss
Amazing!
What are existing tools to prevent this?
Well, I think that what really matters is the article and the scientific contribution, not the author / authors. Why test the ability of the author in this level? What the aim would be?
I think some journals also give a great importance to the name of the author. I have seen a lot of easy research in high impact journals written by famous authors, but if an unknown person would have written the same, none of these journals would have considered the work as valuable.
True the authors names count even if no one admits it officially. I have seen papers in high IF journal that I would reject if I had to review them, then when you look at the authors and the affiliations, you understand what's going on.
The ability of the authors to analyse the data will answer what question exactly? Some journals ask for all raw data to be made available to allow replicability of the tests conducted, but which reviewers really have that time to reanalyse data submitted as supplemental information
The question is an important one. Data collection in particular goes basically unchallenged. At this stage the editorial and peer review processes focus mostly on the other stages of research. I agree that for now the editor should at least query cases that appear absurd. In the distant future, supporting material may be required to include some form of evidence of having actually performed all this. But for now there are rather strict limits as to how much content and of what kind gets accepted under supplementary. Romain, perhaps you should raise this matter with one of the several initiatives reviewing the peer review process?
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology