waterlilyqd的个人博客分享 http://blog.sciencenet.cn/u/waterlilyqd 翻译--编辑--信息分析从平凡中见神奇! Journal of Mountain Science科学网博客


利用在过去的单位的实验数据写论文 署名机构应该是现在的机构还是过去的机构?

已有 1166 次阅读 2019-5-16 12:24 |个人分类:科技杂谈|系统分类:观点评述

利用在过去的单位的实验数据写论文, 署名机构应该是现在的机构还是过去的机构?这个问题对好些中国作者来说好像不是问题,但是这确实是一个问题。这关系到知识产权的归属问题!

在Researchgate有一位学者问了这个问题:If experimental work was done at institute 1 and then the first author moved to institute 2 (where he exploited data and wrote the article), what should be the affiliation of this author in the article? Institute 1 or 2?



--The affiliation should reflect the author's current and primary employment.

-- It should be Institute 2. The fact that the initial work was done in Institute 1 can be part of the footnotes.

--The author is currently in institution 2, that should be his affiliation. However, he should acknowledge institution 1 and mentioned that the work was actually carried out there.

2. 实验数据是在过去的机构(机构1)获得的,知识产权应该归机构1,因此,机构署名应该是过去的机构(机构1)

-- In my view the work should be attributed to institution 1, where the work was actually carried out.

-- Its the place where the author did the work or collected data and in your example it sipposed to be Institute 1. No matter where the author moves, its the alma matter which the work or data represents should refer the authors' affiliation.

--It is  1. You can mention the present address of current institution in foot note

--I feel that Affiliation should reflect institution 1 where the work was carried out

--Except an independent researcher who may have no affiliation, every author adds affiliation to the publication. Consequently, affiliation 1, which was the original author's institution should be considered in this case.

3. 应该同时署上过去的机构(机构1)和现在的机构(机构2)

--It looks like the scientific community has left this issue unresolved. It appears intuitive to include all affiliations where the work has been done. I believe not only experimental work, but also manuscript writing, editing, figure preps, and manuscript submission may be legitimately considered valid contributions.

-- I think it should be both affiliations 1 and 2. Reasons: 1. The work was completed in two affiliations. 2. The readers can trace your current work organization.


1)看投稿期刊是否有相关的规定 (也许有的期刊有,可能绝大部分期刊都没有做得这么细。Springer有专门针对作者署名的规则,但是也没有提供关于作者机构的署名方面的具体建议);

2)所在的机构是否有相关的规定 (很多机构有知识产权方面的规定!)。如果过去的机构没有相关的规定,作者的机构应该反映其现在的真实机构情况。


Olivier Minazzoli

In my view the work should be attributed to institution 1, where the work was actually carried out.

As I am unaware of this practice (or possible convention), I would be incline to think differently and to first ask the following questions:

1/ Does the journal where you intend to publish have any policy on the subject?

2/ (more important) Does your institution(s) have any policy on the subject? (which is highly possible.)

If not, then the choice "The affiliation should reflect the author's current and primary employment" seems to be arbitrary (or conventional).

If not conventional, in the situation described by Azaad Khan, the choice that the affiliation should reflect the author's current and primary employment seems to be unfair for the institution who mostly contributed to the result (through salaries and/or equipments and/or etc.).

Therefore, for fairness (and considering that the question cannot be solved by looking at the policies of institutions/journals; nor by conventions), why the affiliation should not reflect the average of time spent on a given paper in every institutions where the research has been conducted? (as a whole: experiments/preparations/calculations/getting data/meetings/conferences/writing the paper.)

Example: I spent three years in institution A to work on this project and 1 year in institution B. Then my primary institution in the paper is A and my secondary institution is B.

Otherwise, it is also important to notice that conventions may change from one field of research to the other. Therefore, you might want to search for conventions in your area of research by asking your peers.




下一篇:Newly-Released Impact Factors for Five Mountain Journals

1 杨正瓴

该博文允许注册用户评论 请点击登录 评论 (0 个评论)


Archiver|手机版|科学网 ( 京ICP备14006957 )

GMT+8, 2019-10-21 03:15

Powered by ScienceNet.cn

Copyright © 2007- 中国科学报社