Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31016482›Full record

ArticleScience and engineering ethics2020

Suggestions to Improve the Comprehensibility of Current Definitions of Scientific Authorship for International Authors.

Mohammad Hosseini, Luca Consoli, H A E Zwart, Mariette A van den Hoven

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Approach to Publishing a Scientific (Radiology) Book.The Indian journal of radiology & imaging · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mohammad HosseiniSchool of Theology, Philosophy and Music, Dublin City University, All Hallows College, Senior House, Dublin, Ireland. mohammad.hosseini2@mail.dcu.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2385-985X
Luca ConsoliFaculty of Science, Institute for Science in Society, Radboud University Nijmegen, P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8604-1134
H A E ZwartErasmus School of Philosophy, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8846-5213
Mariette A van den HovenDepartment of Philosophy and Religious Studies - Ethiek Instituut, Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, 3512 BL, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1416-0972

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Much has been said about the need for improving the current definitions of scientific authorship, but an aspect that is often overlooked is how to formulate and communicate these definitions to ensure that they are comprehensible and useful for researchers, notably researchers active in international research consortia. In light of a rapid increase in international collaborations within natural sciences, this article uses authorship of this branch of sciences as an example and provides suggestions to improve the comprehensibility of the definitions of authorship in natural sciences. It assesses whether the definition of authorship provided by the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity can deal with current issues and problems of scientific authorship. Notably, problems that are experienced in project groups with researchers coming from multiple countries. Using theories developed by Jürgen Habermas and Robert Merton, a normative framework is developed to articulate ethical authorship in natural sciences. Accordingly, enriching the current definition of authorship with normative elements and using discipline-specific metaphors to communicate them are introduced as possible ways of improving the comprehensibility of the definition of authorship in international environments. Finally, this article provides a proposal to be considered in the future revisions of the European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity.

Indexed as

AuthorshipResearch PersonnelHumansCode of conductEthical authorshipMetaphorScientific authorshipVirtue ethics

Identifiers

PMID31016482
PMCPMC7089890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.