scholarly journals Arbitration is needed to resolve scientific authorship disputes

Author(s):  
Zen Faulkes

Authorship of publications is the main way scientists received credit for their academic research. But as scientific research projects have become larger and more collaborative, the number of contributors has increased, and so has the potential for disputes over authorship. There is rarely detailed accounting of effort to justify authorship inclusion or placement. Instead, authorship is often negotiated by research team members, which is complicated by there often being large power differentials between team members. Existing recommendations are to try to get authors to work out disputes between themselves, which is unlikely to occur. There is an urgent need for an independent body that can offer binding arbitration for scientific collaborators and journals, like practices in other collaborative disciplines.

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zen Faulkes

Authorship of publications is the main way scientists received credit for their academic research. But as scientific research projects have become larger and more collaborative, the number of contributors has increased, and so has the potential for disputes over authorship. There is rarely detailed accounting of effort to justify authorship inclusion or placement. Instead, authorship is often negotiated by research team members, which is complicated by there often being large power differentials between team members. Existing recommendations are to try to get authors to work out disputes between themselves, which is unlikely to occur. There is an urgent need for an independent body that can offer binding arbitration for scientific collaborators and journals, like practices in other collaborative disciplines.


Author(s):  
Cristian Toma

Scientific research is part of any university mission, at least of big universities, as it represents the complementary element required by the learning process. A learning process based on engendering knowledge is much more valuable and competitive than a learning process which is reduced to a mere transfer of knowledge from the teacher to the students. The important universities consider that “the development of scientific research as a fundamental competence is essential for survival in a more and more competitive environment on global level and that is why, research should be part of the university mission”1. This study aims to highlight how important it is for the university members to be aware of the evaluation criteria for the research projects they undertake. For this purpose, I have interviewed a number of 55 persons, project managers and team members in the projects from the “Research for Excellency” program and the National Plan of Research, Development and Innovation PN II 2007 – 2013. Out of the evaluation criteria for research, the most important ones were considered to be the scientific quality of the project and the quality of the human resources involved in the project.


2012 ◽  
Vol 479-481 ◽  
pp. 623-627 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Fang Liu ◽  
Yong Jiu Yuan ◽  
Chen Guang Zhao

The paper gets a scientific research team in university as a case, through the collection of the joint research achievements of the team members nearly 3 years to build the knowledge integration social network and to study the practical problems such as relationship of team members which occurred in the process of knowledge integration. From the perspective of the overall network to conduct a detailed study on the knowledge integration network of this scientific research team, includes three aspects: network viscosity measurement, centrality measurement and structural holes measurement. Analysis the measurement results and gives recommendations to improve the level of knowledge integration in the scientific research team of university.


2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 624-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Attipa Julpisit ◽  
Vatcharaporn Esichaikul

As knowledge sharing is important for every sector, it should be encouraged among team members. Particularly, scientific research projects usually involve knowledge-intensive teams that require members to share various knowledge forms while working together. Although several collaborative systems exist on different platforms, the system features required to improve knowledge sharing between researchers are insufficient. A collaborative system, the Research Collaboration System, designed and developed based on identified collaborative activities and the SECI model, is evaluated by two scientific research projects. Preliminary results show that this system could serve all major research activities of scientific research projects and enhance knowledge sharing.


Author(s):  
Ruth Lowndes ◽  
Palle Storm ◽  
Marta Szebehely

This chapter discusses the taking, writing up, and analyzing of fieldnotes as part of the rapid ethnographic methodology. It describes the preparatory process the team members went through to learn how to conduct observations, and the guiding documents/principles used by the research team throughout the site visits. We explain how observations were carried out and how fieldnotes were captured in our project, comparing this process to that of traditional ethnographic research. It compares the process of writing up and analyzing fieldnotes in traditional ethnography with the process used in the team-based rapid ethnography, drawing on our individual experiences in conducting both types. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the team-based approach.


Author(s):  
Jeasik Cho

This chapter provides a review of the book, which explores how to conceptually understand and practically evaluate the quality of qualitative research. Despite the fact that there are few scholarly pieces regarding qualitative research, the depth and creativity that the pioneering researchers have demonstrated are profound, and the extent to which they cover not only the broad quality of qualitative research but also most of the specific qualities expected by many different kinds of qualitative research is incredible. This chapter summarizes the major topics of this book. Final remarks on this exciting, creative, but difficult topic are preceded by the following summary: Fortunately, There are commonly agreed, bold standards for evaluating the goodness of qualitative research in the academic research community. These standards are a part of what is generally called “scientific research.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document