Authorship, Peer Review, and Publication Materials
a "textbook" reading
A chapter from the well-known and widely-used Introduction to the Responsible Conduct of Research: This work was written by Nicholas H. Steneck, revised in 2007, and produced by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI)—which is a division of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Click here Download here to access chapter 9 from Steneck's textbook, about authorship and publication. If you are curious about the work as a whole, the ORI has made PDFs of the entire text freely available online (visit here Links to an external site.). Chapter 10 is about peer review.
associated articles
As already mentioned, guidelines for granting scientific authorship have, since 1985, tended to follow the four-part template introduced by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). That template requires that scientific authorship be granted to all and only those contributors who (1) substantially conceive or design the work, or acquire, analyze, or interpret the data for the work; (2) draft or critically revise the work for important intellectual content; (3) approve the final version of the work for publication; and (4) agree to be accountable for the accuracy and integrity of the work.
Click here Download here to read Fontarosa, Bauchner, and Flanagin's (2017) summary of recommended authorship policy, agreements, and other considerations worth being aware of while doing team science. Click here Download here to read Faulkes' (2018) commentary on how to resolve authorship disputes—which are being ever more common as more and more collaborative, team science is being done.
news & REPORTS
The most-cited publications in science might not be the ones you expect. Click here Download here to see a 2014 list, curated by Nature, of the top 100 most-cited papers of all time. But also: it often takes a lot of work to get a scientific article published, and many scientific publications are rarely cited—some, never so. Click here Download here to read Richard Van Noorden's 2017 report for Nature about "the science that's never been cited."