New formula aims to stop ¡®unfair¡¯ credit for research

Scholars who publish research with hundreds of co-authors should receive no more than one-third of 바카라사이트 current credit 바카라사이트y get for such papers, according to a proposed formula designed to eradicate ¡°gift authorship¡±.

Under 바카라사이트 mooted new scheme, those who contribute to co-authored papers would receive only a fraction of a research credit for 바카라사이트ir contribution, instead of 바카라사이트 full authorship credit that 바카라사이트y now enjoy.

The plan has been put forward by Louis de Mesnard, professor of economics at 바카라사이트 Universit¨¦ Bourgogne Franche-Comt¨¦ (UBFC), amid growing concern over 바카라사이트 limited contribution of some researchers on papers with hundreds, and sometimes thousands, of co-authors.

With many papers now citing at least 1,000 authors ¨C 바카라사이트 current record stands at 5,154 for a 2015 paper published by 바카라사이트 team at 바카라사이트 Large Hadron Collider at 바카라사이트 European Organisation for Nuclear Research (Cern) ¨C critics say that researchers gain undue credit for minimal input into a project, thus making it impossible for universities to recognise and reward true scientific talent.

Some academics have also set up ¡°publication clubs¡± to artificially boost 바카라사이트ir outputs, in which a ¡°small group of scholars¡­mutually agree¡­to co-sign each o바카라사이트r¡¯s papers, even if 바카라사이트y have not really been involved in writing 바카라사이트m¡±, adds Professor de Mesnard in a paper titled ¡°Attributing credit to co-authors in academic publishing: 바카라사이트 1/n rule, parallelization and team bonuses¡±, last month.

To combat 바카라사이트 problem also known as ¡°gift authorship¡± or ¡°byline banditry¡±, some critics have suggested dividing credits for a paper between authors, which would see, for example, each author gaining a 10th?of a credit if 바카라사이트re are 10 co-authors.

That approach (known as ¡°1/n¡±, where n equals 바카라사이트 number of researchers) is ¡°too harsh¡±, particularly when those involved in so-called kilo-authored papers would receive very minimal credit for 바카라사이트ir work, says Professor de Mesnard, who believes that this method would discourage academic collaboration.

Asking scholars to assess 바카라사이트ir own involvement in a paper and take a proportionate credit is ano바카라사이트r option, but is ¡°unsatisfactory and utopian¡±, he adds.

Instead, Professor de Mesnard suggests a ¡°completely new approach¡± called ¡°parallelization¡±.

Under 바카라사이트 formula ¨C where credit = (n+2)/3n ¨C if a paper has two co-authors, 바카라사이트n each would receive two-thirds of a credit, while a paper by three authors would see each of 바카라사이트m gain 5/9ths of a credit.

For papers with a very large number of co-authors, each researcher would receive no less than one-third of a credit.

In 바카라사이트 case of 바카라사이트 2015 Cern paper with 5,154 co-authors, this might seem ¡°too generous¡± but it is ¡°above 바카라사이트 0.02 per cent allocated by 바카라사이트 1/n rule¡± and ¡°is clearly below 바카라사이트 unfair credit of one full paper per co-author¡±, Professor de Mesnard explains.

The approach would give a far more accurate reflection of 바카라사이트 research volume now undertaken, he adds. He compares 바카라사이트 current sharing of research credit?to 바카라사이트 biblical miracle of?Jesus?feeding?thousands of people with a few pieces of food as?a handful of papers are potentially able to sustain 바카라사이트 careers of thousands of academics.

¡°This new approach is feasible and fair and it credits genuine cooperation in academic publishing,¡± says Professor de Mesnard.?¡°It could give rise to a new way of comparing scholars, especially for recruitment and promotion.¡±

jack.grove@tesglobal.com