Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 52, Issue 7, 2001, Pages 558-569

  Cronin, Blaise ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMMUNICATION; ENGINEERING RESEARCH; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION;

SCIENTIFIC COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS;

BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING;

EID: 0035337211     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.1097     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Anglo-American cataloging rules (2nd ed.). (1998). Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
2. Ahmed, S.M., Maurana, C.A., Engle, J.A., Uddin, D.E., & Glaus, K.D. (1997). A method for assigning authorship in multiauthored publications. Family Medicine, 29, 42-44.
3. Anderson, C. (1991). Hunger strike at volcanology institute. Nature, 354, 3.
4. Anderson, C. (1992). Authorship. Writer's cramp. Nature, 355, 101.
5. Baca, M. (Ed.). (1998). Introduction to metadata: pathways to digital information. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Information Institute.
6. Barthes, R. (1977). The death of the author. In R. Barthes, Image, music, text. Essays selected and translated by S. Heath (pp. 142-148). New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
7. Bartle, S.A., Fink, A.A., & Hayes, B.C. (2000). Psychology of the scientist: LXXX. Attitudes regarding authorship issues in psychological publications. Psychological Reports, 2000, 86, 771-788.
8. Bazerman, C. (1984). Modern evolution of the experimental report in physics: spectroscopic articles in Physical Review, 1893-1980. Social Studies of Science, 14, 163-196.
9. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: the genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
10. Beaver, D. de B. & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration. Part I: The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1, 65-84.
11. Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R., Pearson, P., Vernon, B., & Rogers, H. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. British Medical Journal, 314(7086), 1009-1012.
12. Bird, J.E. (1997). Authorship patterns in marine mammal science, 1985-1995. Scientometrics, 39,19-27.
13. Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg elegies: the fate of reading in an electronic age. New York, NY: Fawcett Columbine.
14. Bordons, M., & Gomez, I. (2000). Collaboration networks in science. In B. Cronin & H.B. Atkins (Eds.), The web of knowledge: a festschrift in honor of Eugene Garfield (ASIS Monograph Series, pp. 197-213). Medford, NJ: Information Today Inc.
15. Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language & symbolic power. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Brodkey, L. (1987). Academic writing as social practice. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
17. Carbone, P.P. (1992). On authorship and acknowledgements. New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 1084.
18. Chubin, D.E., & Hackett, E.J. (1990). Peerless science: peer review and U.S. science policy. Albany. NY: State University of New York Press.
19. Cohen, P. (1999). Your mission is . . .. New Scientist, 2 July, 38-41.
20. Constantian, M. B. (1999). The Gordian knot of multiple authorship. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 103, 2064-2066.
21. Couch, C.J. (1984). Symbolic interaction and generic sociological principles. Symbolic Interaction, 8, 1-13.
22. Crane, D. (1969). Social structure in a group of scientists: A test of the "invisible college" hypothesis. American Sociological Review, 32, 335-352.
23. Croll, R.P. (1984). The noncontributing author: an issue of credit and responsibility. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 27, 401-407.
24. Cronin, B. (1984). The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication. London: Taylor Graham.
25. Cronin, B. (1991). Let the credits roll: A preliminary examination of the role played by mentors and trusted assessors in disciplinary formation. Journal of Documentation, 47, 227-239.
26. Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.
27. Cronin, B. (1996). Rates of return to citation. Journal of Documentation, 52, 188-197.
28. Cronin, B. (2000). Semiotics and evaluative bibliometrics. Journal of Documentation, 56, 440-453.
29. Cronin, B. (in press). Acknowledgment trends in the research literature of information science. Journal of Documentation.
30. Cronin, B., & Weaver-Wozniak, S. (1992). An online acknowledgements index: rationale and feasibility. In Proceedings of the 16th International Online Meeting, London, December 8-10, 1992. Oxford, UK: Learned Information (pp. 281-290).
31. Cronin, B., Davenport, E., & Martinson, A. (1997). Women's studies: Bibliometric and content analysis of the formative years. Journal of Documentation, 53, 121-136.
32. Daily, G.C. et al. (2000). The nature of value and the value of nature. Science, 289, 395-396.
33. Darwin, C. (1919). Autobiography. In F. Darwin (Ed.), The life and letters of Charles Darwin. New York, NY: Appleton.
34. David, P.A. (1998). Communication norms and the collective cognitive performance of "invisible colleges." In G. Barba Navaretti, P. Dasgupta, K.-G. Maler, & D. Siniscalco (Eds.). Creation and transfer of knowledge: Institutions and incentives (pp. 115-163). Berlin: Springer.
35. Drenth, J.P.M. (1998). Multiple authorship: The contribution of senior authors. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 219-221.
36. Ducor, P. (2000). Intellectual property: Coauthorship and coinventorship. Science, 289(5481), 873-875.
37. Duncan, A.M. (1999). Authorship, dissemination of research findings, and related matters. Applied Nursing Research, 12, 101-106.
38. Duncan, E.B. et al. (1981). Qualified citation indexing: Its relevance to educational technology. In E.B. Duncan & R. McAleese (Eds.), Information retrieval in educational technology. Proceedings of the first symposium on information retrieval in educational technology, April 1, 1981, Aberdeen (pp. 70-79). Aberdeen, UK: University of Aberdeen.
39. Endersby, J.W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: Multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375-392.
40. Eysenck, H.J. (1999). Why do scientists cheat? Journal of Information Ethics, 8, 27-35.
41. Fine, G.A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glorious triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 61-87.
42. Flanagin, A., Carey, L., Fontanarosa, P.B., Phillips, S.G., Pace, B.P., Lundberg, G.D., & Rennie, D. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 222-224.
43. Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author? In D.F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, countermemory, practice: Selected essays and interviews. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 113-138.
44. Franck, G. (1999). Scientific communication - a vanity fair? Science, 286, 53-56.
45. Gaeta, T.J. (1999). Authorship: "Law" and order. Academic Emergency Medicine, 6, 297-301.
46. Grafton, A. (1997). The footnote: A curious history. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Gross, A.G., Harmon, J.E., & Reidy, M.S. (2000). Argument and 17th-century science: A rhetorical analysis with sociological implications. Social Studies of Science, 30, 371-396.
48. Harsayni, M.A. (1993). Multiple authors, multiple problems: Bibliometrics and the study of scholarly collaboration. A literature review. Library & Information Science Research, 15, 325-354.
49. Heffner, A.G. (1979). Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Social Studies of Science, 9, 377-384.
50. Heffner, A.G. (1981). Funded research, multiple authorship, and subauthorship collaboration in four disciplines. Scientometrics, 3, 5-12.
51. Hoen, W.P., Walvoort, H.C., & Overbeke, A.J.P.M. (1998). What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 217-218.
52. Horton, R. (1998). The unmasked carnival of science. The Lancet, 351(9104), 688-689.
53. Houston, P., & Moher, D. (1996). Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. The Lancet, 347(9007), 1024-1026.
54. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20, 341-367.
55. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). (1997). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277, 927-934.
56. Kahn, K.S., Nwosu, C.R., Kahn, S.F., Dwarakanath, L.S., & Chien, P.F.W. (1999). A controlled analysis of authorship trends over two decades. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 503-507.
57. Kassirer, J.P., & Angell, M. (1991). On authorship and acknowledgements. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1510-1512.
58. Katz, J.S., & Martin, B.R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1-18.
59. Katzen, M.F. (1980). The changing appearance of research journals in science and technology: an analysis and a case study. In A.J. Meadows (Ed.), Development of scientific publication in Europe (pp. 177-214). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
60. Kernan, A. (1990). The death of literature. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
61. Kevles, D.J. (1998). The Baltimore case: A trial of politics, science, and character. New York, NY: Norton.
62. King, J.T. (2000). How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgical research. Neurosurgery, 47, 435-440.
63. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
64. Klein, C.J., & Moser-Veillon, P.B. (1999). Authorship: Can you claim a byline? Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 99, 77-79.
65. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences in the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. Journal of the American Society for information Science, 51, 1306-1320.
66. Kling, R., McKim, G., Fortuna, J., & King, A. (1999). A bit more to IT: Scientific multiple media communication forums as socio-technical interaction networks. Available at: http://www.slis.indiana.edu/SCIT/ publications.html
67. Knight, D. (1976). The nature of science: The history of science in western culture since 1600. London: Deutsch.
68. Koehler, W. et al. (1999). A bibliometric exploration of the demographics of journal articles: Fifty years of American Documentation and the Journal of the American Society for Information Science. Available at: http://www.ou.edu/cas/slis/courses/Methods/jbib/
69. Kronick, D.A. (2001). The comerce of letters: Networks and "invisible colleges" in seventeenth and eighteenth-century Europe. Library Quarterly, 71, 28-43.
70. Kunst, F. et al. (1997). The complete genome sequence of the Gram-positive bacterium Bacillus Subtilis. Nature, 390(6657), 249-256.
71. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
72. McCain, K.W. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16, 491-516.
73. McDonald, K.A. (1995). Too many co-authors? Chronicle of Higher Education, April 28, A35-A36.
74. Manguel, A. (1997). A history of reading. London: Flamingo.
75. Manten, A.A. (1980). Development of European scientific journal publishing before 1850. In A.J. Meadows (Ed.), Development of scientific-publication in Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1-22.
76. Merton, R.K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R.K. Merton and N.W. Storer (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
77. Mullins, N.C. (1973). Theories and theory groups in American sociology. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
78. Newman, D. (1996). Writing together separately: Critical discourse and the problems of cross-ethnic co-authorship. Area, 28, 1-12.
79. Newman, M.E.J. (2000). Who is the best connected scientist? A study of scientific coauthorship networks. Available at: http://eprints.lanl.gov/ cgi-bin/w3vdkhgw?qryGCA02ifHs;conm-0011144
80. Nowak, M.A. & Sigmund, K. (2000). Shrewd investments. Science, 288, May 5, 819-820.
81. Patel, N. (1973). Collaboration in the professional growth of American sociology. Social Science Information, 12, 77-92.
82. Poster, M. (1990). The mode of information: Poststructuralism and social context. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
83. Price de Solla, D.J. (1963). Little science, big science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
84. Rayward, W.B. (1992). Restructuring and mobilizing information in documents: A historical perspective. In P. Vakkari & Cronin, B. (Eds.), Conceptions of library and information science: Historical, empirical and theoretical perspectives. London: Taylor Graham, 50-68.
85. Relman, A.S. (1983). Lessons from the Darsee affair. New England Journal of Medicine, 308, 1415-1417.
86. Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship!: Guests, ghosts grafters, and the two-sided coin. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271, 469-471.
87. Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 579-585.
88. Rennie. D., & Yank, V. (1998). If authors became contributors, everyone would gain, especially the reader. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 828-830.
89. Riesenberg, D., & Lundberg, G.D. (1990). The order of authorship: who's on first? Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 1857.
90. Saffran, M. (1989). On multiple authorship: Describe the contribution. The Scientist, 3, 9.
91. Shapin, S. (1995). A social history of truth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
92. Slone, R.M. (1996). Coauthors' contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved authorship. American Journal of Roentgenology, 167, 571-579.
93. Smith, R. (1997). Authorship is dying: Long live contributorship. British Medical Journal, 315(7110), 696.
94. Spiegel, D., & Keith-Spiegel, P. (1970). Assignment of publication credits: ethics and practices of psychologists. American Psychologist, 25, 738-747.
95. Squires, B.P. (1996). Authors: Who contributes what? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 155, 897-898.
96. Stern, E.B. (2000). Authorship criteria: Opening a dialogue, American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 54, 214-217.
97. Traweek, S. (1992). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
98. Verner, D.A. (1993). Astronomy acknowledgement index 1992. Messenger, 71, 59.
99. Wilcox, L.J. (1998). Authorship: The coin of the realm, the source of complaints. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 216-217.