曾几何时，期刊的作者署名顺序问题成了科学网上的热门话题。曹广福老师所说的数学界按姓氏笔画排名的古朴风俗，在当今的医学界是难以想象的。就我所知道的国外作者排名的讲究也说几句。

    以前提到过Vancouver Protocol¹，作为对生物医学杂志（其实已经不限于生物医学杂志）的统一标准，明确了对作者的最低要求。不过Vancouver Protocol不涉及作者署名顺序问题。

    作者的署名顺序至关重要，求职时一篇第一作者文章往往要胜过若干篇第二作者文章。俗云：“言轻莫劝人”，还是引用一段权威的：“Now, I need to explain some important conventions and rules in scientific publishing. The order in which people's names appear on a scientific paper is hard won by dint of personal contribution. No name must appear of anyone who has not been significantly involved.
The first author is supposed to be the person who's come up with most of the ideas and done most of the work and it's downhill from there until the prized last name, who's often the team leader.
It's scientific misconduct for a person to appear in an authorship line if they haven't significantly contributed to the work. That's called gift authorship and is a big no-no.” ²

    以上强调了作者排名是按对文章的贡献，第一作者的付出和其他共同作者不可同日而语，而最后作者也极其风光，通常是头儿。

    有幸成为第一作者对升迁或获取经费大有好处：“Many scientific disciplines look at the first author as the most significant contributor to a research paper. As a result, being first author provides the most credit for potential career advancement in the form of promotions or grants.” ³

    有些大学明确规定了攻读学位的学生通常应该理所当然地成为第一作者。^4，5 学生的学术生涯刚刚开始，虽然有真才实学的导师有时对文章的贡献可能比学生要多，但绝不和学生争第一作者。即使多年之后，想起导师，学生还会心怀感激。

    有一次看到这样的网上求助：“导师要当第一作者，我该怎么办？” 实在是爱莫能助。说不定这导师会在背后被人指指点点，学着赵太爷教训阿Q的口吻说：“你真的是第一作者？你也配是第一作者！” 真是何苦来哉！



1. http://www.icmje.org/

Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication
Updated October 2008
· Authorship credit should be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
· When a large, multicenter group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript (3). These individuals should fully meet the criteria for authorship/contributorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to complete journal-specific author and conflict-of-interest disclosure forms. When submitting a manuscript authored by a group, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals generally list other members of the group in the Acknowledgments. The NLM indexes the group name and the names of individuals the group has identified as being directly responsible for the manuscript; it also lists the names of collaborators if they are listed in Acknowledgments.
· Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship.
· All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed.
· Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section. Examples of those who might be acknowledged include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chair who provided only general support.


2. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2002/531406.htm


3. http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/rcr/rcr_authorship/q_a/index.html


4. http://74.125.153.132/search?q=cache:C3zQW319a1gJ:louisville.edu/research/policies-procedures/research-ethics-rcr-oct-2002.pdf+Ethical+Conduct+in+Authorship+and+Publication&cd=8&hl=zh-CN&ct=clnk

ETHICAL CONDUCT AND REPORTING
OF RESEARCH
Prepared by the Office of the Senior Vice President for Research
University of Louisville
October 21, 2002

Authorship
a. Only people who have made a significant, substantive contribution to a publication shall be
named as author. Without limiting the foregoing, the following relationships do not, in
themselves, warrant authorship:
i. financial and/or material support,
ii. routine technical assistance,
iii. collection of data, and
iv. furnishing research space.
b. Order of authorship for a publication shall be determined in accordance with the standard
prevailing in the academic discipline, if any.
c. Notwithstanding subsection b, with respect to a student dissertation that fulfills the degree
requirements, the degree candidate shall always receive first authorship. If the candidate completes all
obligations except for preparing a manuscript, decisions regarding authorship of any ensuing publication
shall be made after consultation with co-authors, the candidate’s committee, and the Department Chair.
d. In the case of multiple authorship, each co-author will share collective responsibility for the
entire publication.



5. http://www.bpsjournals.co.uk/authors/principles-of-publishing.cfm
Journals of the British Psychological Society
Authorship
The overriding principle of the recommendations on authorship is that only those collaborators who have made a significant scientific contribution should be credited as authors. It is not only the writers of the paper who are entitled to authorship. Inclusion is merited if an individual has made a major scientific contribution to the research project as a whole and/or the writing of the paper. Specifically, significant contributions are:
· Design of the research
· Designing and conducting major analysis
· Interpreting findings
· Writing a major section of the journal article
A number of other contributions essential to the smooth running of the research endeavour do not merit authorship, but nevertheless should be acknowledged in a note. Minor contributions are generally considered as technical activities that provide no significant intellectual/scientific input into the research process. Authorship is not warranted if these are the sole activities undertaken by an individual. Examples of minor contributions include:
· Collection of data (including interviewing) and data entry, if these do not include a significant intellectual/scientific input
· Supervised data analysis
· Designing or building research apparatus
· Recruiting research participants and other administrative duties
· Advising on statistical issues
The order in which authors' names appear should be determined by the relative size of each individual's contribution. Thus, an individual who is judged consensually to have made the most significant contribution to the paper would normally be the first named author. A collaborator who has been a major contributor to the research overall, but has a lesser role in writing a journal article would not qualify for principal authorship, but should be listed as a co-author. In cases where two or more authors have had equal roles in the research and writing processes, names can be ordered randomly, or alphabetically, with an author's note as explanation for the reader. If a project leads to several journal articles in which all authors made a demonstrably equal contribution to both the research and writing for every paper, authors can decide to alternate first authorship. In many medical journals it is now required that authors specify in their letters of submission the relative weight and content of the contributions of each named author.
Neither the inclusion nor ordering of names should be influenced by the relative status of the collaborating individuals. Authorship is not merited by virtue of being, for example, the head of the research group or department in which the research was undertaken. In the case of student-supervisor collaborations, the student should usually be the principal author when the article is substantially based on the student's research. Supervisors should therefore seek to ensure that the student is enabled to make the major contribution in order to merit first authorship. Exceptions to the rule should be made only if:
· all of the ideas and the design for the research were the supervisor's (for example, if undergraduate or MSc students elect to do their dissertation research on 'ready-made' projects proposed by their supervisors);
· extremely close supervision was required in order to produce the paper;
· the supervisor conducted (or closely guided) further extensive analysis that was beyond the scope of the original research and had made a sustained and major contribution to the research prior to that.
Prior agreement must be reached with the student if the supervisor intends to publish under any of the above provisos. Since students may often lack knowledge and power in these situations, supervisors are obliged to manage each case fairly and openly, in accordance with the ethical guidelines, ideally seeking the opinion of senior colleagues who should be provided with a copy of these principles.
Equitable and accurate attribution of authorship will be facilitated if clear task requirements and task allocations are established at the outset. Explicit discussion of which tasks will be worthy of which level of credit should be included in the design phase of the research. However, decisions should be reviewed and revised as appropriate in the light of changes during the course of the project.
It is often the case that writing continues long after the original research team has disbanded. The same rules of authorship should apply to post-project output. At a minimum, no work should be undertaken, or authorship assumed, without prior consultation with all former collaborators. Careful co-ordination and communication can prevent the misappropriation of credit for the original research, and reduce the possibility of duplicate publication.


转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自陈巨川科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-209989-238565.html

上一篇：看看国外行家们造假的境界
下一篇：质疑：国籍与爱国