What does it mean to be an author? The intersection of credit, contribution, and collaboration in science

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 57, Issue 13, 2006, Pages 1758-1770

  Birnholtz, Jeremy P ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DATA REDUCTION; INFORMATION SCIENCE; MATHEMATICAL MODELS;

COLLABORATIVE RESEARCH; PROMOTION;

HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS;

EID: 33750850886     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20380     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Atkins, D.E., Droegemeier, K.K., Feldman, S.I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M.L., & Messina, P. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington, DC: NSF.
2. Bechky, B. (2005). Gaffers, gofers, and grips: Role-based coordination in temporary organizations. Organization Science, 17(1), 3-21.
3. Becker, H.S. (1982). Art worlds. Berkeley: University of California Press.
4. Biagioli, M. (2003). Rights or rewards. In M. Biagioli & P. Galison (Eds.), Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science (pp. 253-280). New York: Routledge.
5. Birnholtz, J.P. (2005). When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity in science and engineering research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
6. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Claxton, L.D. (2005). Scientific authorship: Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices and guidelines. Mutation Research, 589(1), 31-45.
8. Close, F., Marten, M., & Sutton, C. (2002). The particle odyssey: A journey to the heart of matter. New York: Oxford University Press.
9. Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.
10. Cronin, B. (2001). Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(7), 558-569.
11. Cronin, B. (2005). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
12. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands: Coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871.
13. Cummings, J., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35 (5). 703-722.
14. Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2001). Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(9), 770-773.
15. Engers, M., Gans, J., Grant, S., & King, S. (1999). First author conditions. Journal of Political Economy. 107(4), 859-883.
16. Finholt, T.A. (2003). Collaboratories as a new form of scientific organization. Economics of Innovation and New Technologies, 12(1), 5-25.
17. Foucault, M. (1977). What is an author? In D.F. Bouchard (Ed.), Language, counter-memory, practice (pp. 113-138). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
18. Franck, G. (1999, October 1). Scientific communication - A vanity fair? Science, 286, 53-55.
19. Galison, P. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphsics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20. Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
21. Groves, T. (1973). Incentives in teams. Econometrica, 41(4), 617-631.
22. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.L., & Sonnenwald, D.H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists' perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952-965.
23. Huberman, A.M., & Miles, M.B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In Y. Lincoln & N. Denzin (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428-444), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24. Kennedy, D. (2003, August 8). Multiple authors, multiple problems, Science, 301, 733.
25. Kevles, D.J. (1998). The Baltimore case: A trial of politics, science, and character. New York: Norton.
26. King, J.T. (2000). How many neurosurgeons does it take to write a research article? Authorship proliferation in neurosurgery. Neurosurgery, 47(2), 435-440.
27. Kling, R., & McKim, G. (2000). Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication, Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 51(14), 1306-1320.
28. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. McCray, P. (2000). Large telescopes and the moral economy of recent astronomy. Social Studies of Science, 30(5), 685-711.
30. Merton, R.K. (1968, January 5). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56-63.
31. Mervis, J. (2005, April 29). Marburger asks social scientists for a helping hand in interpreting data. Science, 308, 617.
32. Nentwich, M. (2003). Cyberscience: Research in the age of the Internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences.
33. Paneth, N., Hemenway, D., Fortney, J.A., & Jung, B.C. (1998). Authorship: Readers and editors respond. American Journal of Public Health, 88(5), 824-831.
34. Parker, R.A., & Berman, N.A. (1998). Criteria for authorship for statisticians in medical papers. Statistics in Medicine, 17(20), 2289-2299.
35. Price, D.J.d.S. (1986). Little science, big science... and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press.
36. Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(7), 579-585.
37. Rose, M. (1993). Authors and owners: The invention of copyright. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38. Saffran, M. (1989). On multiple authorship: Describe the contribution. The Scientist, 3(6), 9.
39. Seife, C. (2005). High-energy physics: Exit America? Science, 308, 38-40.
40. Shapin, S. (1989). The invisible technician. American Scientist, 77, 554-563.
41. Shapin, S. (1995). A social history of truth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42. Shrum, W., Chompalov. I., & Genuth, J. (2001). Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Social Studies of Science, 31(5), 681-730.
43. Smith, R. (1997). Authorship is dying: Long live contributorship. British Medical Journal, 315, 696.
44. Tarnow, E. (1999). The authorship list in science: Junior physicists' perceptions of who appears and why. Science and Engineering Ethics, 5(1), 73-88.
45. Taubes, G. (1986). Nobel dreams: Power, deceit and the ultimate experiment. New York: Random House.
46. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47. Verner, D.A. (1993). Astronomy acknowledgement index 1992. Messenger, 67, 61-62.
48. Whitley, R. (2000). The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
49. "Who'd want to work in a team?" (2003). Nature, 424, 1.
50. Woodmansee, M., & Jaszi, P. (1994). The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature. London: Duke University Press.