Skip to main content
Log in

A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science

  • Published:
Science and Engineering Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This essay discusses some of the problems with current authorship practices and puts forward a proposal for a new system of credit allocation: in published works, scientists should more clearly define the responsibilities and contributions of members of research teams and should distinguish between different roles, such as author, statistican, technician, grant writer, data collector, and so forth.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes and references

  1. LaFollette, M. (1992) Stealing into Print. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  2. I do not take credit for this idea, since it has been discussed in the literature for a number of years. See Macaulcy, D. (1992) Cite the workers. British Medical Journal 305: 120; Fotion, N. & Conrad, C. (1984) Authorship and other credits. Annals of Internal Medicine 100: 592–594; White, B. & Knight, J. (1997) Multiple authorship. Science 275: 461, and Hopfield, J. (1997) Authorship: truth in labeling. Science 275: 1501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. McLellin, F. (1995) Authorship in biomedical publications: how many people can wield one pen? American Medical Writers Association Journal 10: 11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Drenth, J. (1996) Proliferation of authors on research reports in medicine. Science and Engineering Ethics 2: 469–480.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Fuchs, S. (1992) The Professional Quest for the Truth. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Panel on Seientifie Responsibility and the Conduct of Research (1992) Responsible Science, Volume 1. National Academy Press, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Whitbeck, C. (1995) Trust and trustworthiness in research. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 403–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Relman, A. (1983) Lessons from the Darsee affair. New England Journal of Medicine 308: 1415–1417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1991) Guidelines on authorship. New England Journal of Medicine 324: 424–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Broad, W. & Wade, N. (1993) Betrayers of the Truth, new edition. Simon and Schuster, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Huth, E. (1986) Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 257–59.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Rose, M. & Fischer, K. (1995) Policies and perspectives on authorship. Science and Engineering Ethics 1: 361–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Huth, E. (1986) Guidelines on authorship of medical papers. Annals of Internal Medicine 104: 269–74.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Kennedy, D. (1985) On Academic Authorship. Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Aristotle once claimed that we should not expect more precision from a subject than the subject admits. See Aristotle (1985) Nichomachian Ethics, Trans. by Irwin T. Hackett, Indianapolis.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Dr. Resnik is an Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for the Advancement of Ethics, University of Wyoming. Information is available on website: http://www.uwyo.edu/bu/acct/cae.htm

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Resnik, D.B. A proposal for a new system of credit allocation in science. SCI ENG ETHICS 3, 237–243 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0023-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-997-0023-5

Keywords

Navigation