No More First Authors, No More Last Authors. Kiser, G. L. 561(7724):435.
No More First Authors, No More Last Authors [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered listing of authors that stalls collaborative science, says Gretchen L. Kiser. [Excerpt] Every academic scientist has heard a tale of someone being shafted on an authorship list, or had it happen to them. Less appreciated is how much the attribution of credit impedes cross-disciplinary approaches to difficult questions. It creates a negative feedback loop that hinders research. [] Most scientists agree that research questions and approaches have become more complex, so the need to engage in expanded team science has increased. [...] Nevertheless, there seems to be an undeclared disincentive for researchers to build unconventional collaborations. [...] The assessment of publications during promotion and tenure decisions is a big part of the problem. Although these processes often have some mechanism to recognize a researcher's team contributions, the culture remains largely unchanged from 50 years ago. [...] Many journals now allow, and even require, statements that explain contributors' roles in their publications. Taxonomies and standardized vocabularies for describing authors' roles have been developed. Similarly, promotion and tenure committees are using contribution narratives in their assessments. These changes are helping. They capture a fuller spectrum of a researcher's productivity so that evaluators can consider more than where someone sits in an author list. [...]
@article{kiserNoMoreFirst2018,
  title = {No More First Authors, No More Last Authors},
  author = {Kiser, Gretchen L.},
  date = {2018-09},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  volume = {561},
  pages = {435},
  issn = {0028-0836},
  doi = {10.1038/d41586-018-06779-2},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06779-2},
  abstract = {If we really want transdisciplinary research, we must ditch the ordered listing of authors that stalls collaborative science, says Gretchen L. Kiser.

[Excerpt] Every academic scientist has heard a tale of someone being shafted on an authorship list, or had it happen to them. Less appreciated is how much the attribution of credit impedes cross-disciplinary approaches to difficult questions. It creates a negative feedback loop that hinders research. [] Most scientists agree that research questions and approaches have become more complex, so the need to engage in expanded team science has increased. [...] Nevertheless, there seems to be an undeclared disincentive for researchers to build unconventional collaborations. [...] The assessment of publications during promotion and tenure decisions is a big part of the problem. Although these processes often have some mechanism to recognize a researcher's team contributions, the culture remains largely unchanged from 50 years ago. [...] Many journals now allow, and even require, statements that explain contributors' roles in their publications. Taxonomies and standardized vocabularies for describing authors' roles have been developed. Similarly, promotion and tenure committees are using contribution narratives in their assessments. These changes are helping. They capture a fuller spectrum of a researcher's productivity so that evaluators can consider more than where someone sits in an author list. [...]},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14640180,authorship,check-list,research-management,research-team-size,science-ethics,scientific-communication,team-diversity,transdisciplinary-research},
  number = {7724}
}
Downloads: 0