Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article's paratext

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology

Volumn 57, Issue 14, 2006, Pages 1909-1918

  Cronin, Blaise ^a   Franks, Sara ^a  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LIFE SCIENCES; RESOURCE MOBILIZATION; TRADING CULTURES;

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; TECHNICAL WRITING;

INFORMATION SCIENCE;

EID: 33751534837     PISSN: 15322882     EISSN: 15322890     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/asi.20407     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Beaver, D.de B., & Rosen, R. (1978). Studies in scientific collaboration: Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics, 1(1), 65-84.
2. Beaver, J.D. (2005, July). Patterns of co-authorship: Statistical, philosophical, and sociological implications. In P. Ingwersen & B. Larsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Karolinska University Press, 2, 727-730.
3. Bekelman, J.E., Li, Y., & Gross, C.P. (2003). Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: A systematic review. Journal of the American Medical Association, 289, 454-465.
4. Biagiolio, M., & Galison, P. (2003). Scientific authorship: Credit and intellectual property in science. New York: Routledge.
5. Blumenthal, D., Campbell, E.G., Anderson, M.S., Causino, N., & Louis, K.S. (1997). Withholding research results in academic life science. Evidence from a national survey of faculty. Journal of the American Medical Association, 277(15), 1224-1228.
6. 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 (pp. 197-213). Medford, NJ: Information Today, Inc. &ASIS.
7. Canagarajah, A.S. (2002). A geopolitics of academic writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
8. Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. (2nd ed.). Oxford. England: Blackwell.
9. Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
10. Cronin, B. (1995). The scholar's courtesy: The role of acknowledgement in the primary communication process. London: Taylor Graham.
11. Cronin, B. (2002). 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.
12. Cronin, B. (2005a). The hand of science: Academic writing and its rewards. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
13. Cronin, B. (2005b, July). Warm bodies, cold facts: The embodiment and emplacement of knowledge claims. In P. Ingwersen & B. Larsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics, Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm: Karolinska University Press, 1, 1-12.
14. Cronin, B., Davenport, E., & Martinson, A. (1997). Women's studies: Bibliometric and content analysis of the formative years. Journal of Documentation, 53(2), 123-138.
15. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2003). A cast of thousands. Coauthorship and sub-authorship collaboration in the twentieth century as manifested in the scholarly literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(9), 855-871.
16. Cronin, B., Shaw, D., & La Barre, K. (2004). Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in twentieth century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(2), 160-168.
17. Cyranoski, D. (2002, December 12). Research materials: Share and share alike? Nature, 420, 602-604.
18. Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. (2001). Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 52(9), 770-773.
19. Eaton, J.W. (1951). Social processes of professional teamwork. American Sociological Review, 16(5), 707-713.
20. Frohmann, B. (2004). Deflating information: From science studies to documentation. Toronto: Toronto University Press.
21. Geertz, C. (1973). Thick description: Toward an interpretative theory of culture. In The interpretation of culture (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.
22. Genette, G. (1997). Palimpsests: Literature in the second degree. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
23. Giles, C.L., & Councill, I.G. (2004). Who gets acknowledged? Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101 (51), 17599-17604.
24. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
25. Gross, A.G., Harmon, J.E., & Reidy, M. (2002). Communicating science: The scientific article from the 17th century to the present. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
26. Guédon, J.-C. (2004). In Oldenburg's long shadow: Librarians, research scientists, publishers, and the control of scientific publishing. Retrieved from: http://www.arl.org/arl/proceedings/138/guedon.html
27. Hacking, I. (1992). The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences. In A. Pickering (Ed.), Science as practice and culture (pp. 29-64). Chicago: Chicago University Press.
28. Heffner, A.G. (1979). Authorship recognition of subordinates in collaborative research. Social Studies of Science, 9, 377-384.
29. Howard, R.M. (1999). Standing in the shadow of giants: Plagiarists, authors, collaborators. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
30. Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. London: Longman.
31. Hyland, K. (2003). Dissertation acknowledgements: The anatomy of a Cinderella genre. Written Communication, 20, 242-268.
32. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
33. Kretschmer, H., & Rousseau, R. (2001). Author inflation leads to a break-down of Lotka's Law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52(8), 610-614.
34. Laband, D.N., & Tollison, R.D. (2000). Intellectual collaboration. Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 632-662.
35. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
37. Law, J., & Hassard, J. (Eds.). (1999). Actor Network Theory and after. Oxford, England: Blackwell and the Sociological Review.
38. Lewison, G., Dawson, G., & Anderson, J. (1995). The behaviour of biomedical scientific authors in acknowledging their funding sources. In M.E.D. Koenig & A. Bookstein (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of the International Society for Scientometrics and Informetrics (pp. 255-263). Medford, NJ: Learned Information.
39. Luukkonen, T., Persson, O., & Silvertsen, G. (1992). Understanding patterns of international scientific understanding. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 17(1), 101-126.
40. Mauss, M. (1990). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies (W.D. Halls, Trans.). New York: Norton.
41. McCain, K.W. (1991). Communication, competition, and secrecy: The production and dissemination of research-related information in genetics. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 16(4), 491-516.
42. Meadows, A.J. (1974). Communication in science. London: Butterworths.
43. Merton, R.K. (1988). The Matthew Effect in science: II. Cumulative advantage and the symbolism of intellectual property. ISIS, 79, 606-623.
44. Morris, S.A., Goldstein, M.L., & Deyong, C.F. (2005). Manifestation of research teams in journal literature: A growth model of papers, authors, collaboration, coauthorship, weak ties, and Lotka's Law. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology.
45. Mullins, N.C. (1973). Theories and theory groups in American sociology. New York: Harper & Row.
46. Myers, G. (1990). Writing biology: Texts in the social construction of scientific knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
47. National Science Board. (2004). Science and engineering indicators. Retrieved from: http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind04/
48. Nersessian, N.J., Kurz-Milcke, E., Newsletter, W.C., & Davies, J. (2003). Research laboratories as evolving distributed cognitive systems. Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857-862). Boston: Cognitive Science Society.
49. Palmer, C.L. (2005). Scholarly work and the shaping of digital access. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 56(11), 1140-1153.
50. Patel, N. (1973). Collaboration in the professional growth of American sociology. Social Science Information, 12(6), 77-92.
51. Persson, O., Glänzel, W., & Danell, R. (2004). Inflationary bibliometric values: The role of scientific collaboration and the need for relative indicators in evaluative studies. Scientometrics, 60(3), 421-432.
52. Price, D.J.de S. (1965). Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press.
53. Rennie, D., & Flanagin, A. (1994). Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264(6), 1857.
54. Rheinberger, H.-J. (1997). Toward a history of epistemic things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
55. Romano, C. (2005, June 10). A philosopher's humanity. Chronicle of Higher Education, 51(40), B10.
56. Salager-Meyer, F., Ariza, M.A.A., & Zambrano, N. (2003). The scimitar, the dagger and the glove: Intercultural differences in the rhetoric of criticism in Spanish, French and English medical discourse (1930-1995). English for Special Purposes, 22, 223-247.
57. Shapin, S. (1995). A social history of truth: Civility and science in seventeenth-century England. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
58. Star, S.L. (1991). The sociology of the invisible: The primacy of work in the writings of Anselm Strauss. In D. Maines (Ed.), Social organization and social process: Essays in honor of Anselm Strauss (pp. 265-283). Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.
59. Strauss, A. (1985). Work and the division of labour. Sociological Quarterly, 26(1), 1-19.
60. Swales, J.M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
61. Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
62. von Hippel, E. (1987). Cooperation between rivals: informal know-how trading, Research Policy, 16, 291-293
63. Wagner, C.S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2004). Network structure, self-organization and the growth of international collaboration in science. Amsterdam School of Communications Research, University of Amsterdam. Retrieved from: http://users.fmg.uva.nl/lleydesdorff/cwagner/collabnets.pdf
64. Warnick, B. (2000). Online ethos: Source credibility in an authorless environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 48(2), 256-265.
65. Wray, K.B. (2002). The epistemic significance of collaborative research. Philosophy of Science, 69(1), 150-168.
66. Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
67. Zuckerman, H. (1977). Scientific elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.