Publications authorship

Because his philosophy on publication authorship differed substantially from that of many academic, govermnent agency, and health organization investigators, Rodgman did not insert his name as co-anthor on the many articles on tobacco and smoke composition presented at conferences and/or published in peer-reviewed journals by his staff members. If he had done what many snpervisors do, his list of publications between 1960 and 1987 would be increased by almost 200. However, his contribntions to many of the studies are described in the Acknowledgment section of many of his staff/colleagnes publications. 

Hieronymus Theodor Richter was bom at Dresden on November 21, 1824. He became a metallurgical chemist at the Freiberg School of Mines. When he placed some of the zinc blende in the loop of a platinum wire and heated it in the flame of a Bunsen burner, he observed a brilliant indigo line which did not coincide with either of the blue lines of cesium (20, 52). Because of this characteristic spectral line the new element was christened indium. The publication of this contribution under joint authorship was a mistake which Professor Reich afterward regretted, for Richter tried to make it appear that he Was the sole discoverer (2, 51, 52). 

In this paper, we advocate the use of literate programming methods, first introduced by Knuth [2], but now little used [3], as a means of placing computer code in the public domain along side the associate theoretical apparatus. Such publication not only places the work in the body of scientific knowledge but also serves to establish authorship. 

A well-assorted, international representation of authorship is evident in recent volumes of Advances the original British-American liaison on which the publication was founded has been substantially expanded to the international level. The present volume includes, in addition to contributions from North America and Great Britain, articles from continental Europe and, coincidentally, three separate chapters by authors based at different points on the African continent. 

Unfortunately, scenario (6) is very common. The inventor publishes the invention before filing the patent application. In general, 102(a) or 102(b) will be cited as a basis for rejection, depending on the authorship of the prior publication and how much time elapsed between the publication and the patent application filing. By the present facts, our erstwhile inventor s patent application was filed more than 1 year after the abstract was published. As a result, the published abstract is prior art under 102(b) and is good for all that it discloses. Our Acme chemist cannot antedate 102(b) prior art. Notably, the published abstract may not affect the claim to the use of the compound for cognition enhancement since the abstract did not disclose, teach or even suggest such a use. 

A question that often arises concerns the order of the authors names. This is not really an ethical issue, and practice varies from place to place. Most often the first author is assumed to have made the major contribution to the work, and the senior and/or corresponding author is listed last. However, many variations to this theme exist, such as putting the authors in alphabetical order. In some cases, the specific contributions of each author are described. Ideally, the order of authorship should be decided amicably among the authors, but perceptions sometimes differ between the individuals involved. Authors should not become obsessed with this matter. Ultimately, a researcher s scientific reputation rests on the totality of publications and the significance of contributions to the field. 

Standard calendars, rulers, lists, or tables taken from the public domain and other works containing no original authorship. 

An increase in the published work, coupled with restricted space available for this Report, makes it difficult to be comprehensive and critical. Regretfully some papers remain unreviewed, to be buried deeper in the chemical literature, while others that have eluded the referees escape deserved criticism. The practices of reporting the same results in more than one paper, of reporting work similar to that already published, and of eking out results into an unnecessary number of publications continue, and are to be deplored. In the interests of economy, a number of such papers are omitted from this Report. The change in authorship of this chapter and delay in the receipt of some publications in Canada make it inevitable that some significant papers have not been included they will be covered in next year s Report. Within these limitations, every effort has been made to cover this year s monoterpenoid literature comprehensively. 

In contrast to the invisible assistants, the contributions in other relationships were widely acknowledged, particularly in co-authorship of publications. Here, we will see four examples of such collaborative couples. 

He has been the president of Slovak (from 2007, member 1984) and member of Czech (2001) Chemical Societies. He has been a member on the editorial board of electronic journal ARKIVOC (1999) and Molecules (1999), European Journal of Organic Chemistry (2001), Current Organic Chemistry (2004), Tetrahedron (2004), Journal of Heterocyclic Chemistry (2006), Israel Science Foundation (2006), Acta Chimica Slovenika (2007), Chemical Papers, Collection of Czechoslovak Chemical Communications, VEGA, and GACR. He has to his credit over 90 publications, 30 lectures, 15 patent applications, about 160 citations in foreign scientific sources, co-authorship of 1 scriptum, 12 reviews and monographs, and 3 audiovisual courses. 

Authorship on papers is a matter of substantial debate. Under some circumstances, literally dozens of coauthors will clamor to be listed, and this phenomenon is not restricted to the publication of huge multicenter clinical trials. Clinical trials are a specific case of this general, perennial problem, to which Rafal (1991) has provided a somewhat humorous guide. There are two solutions. 

Inappropriate attribution of authorship and gifted authorship on publications... 

Sheikh A. 2000. Publication ethics and the research assessment exercise reflections on the troubled question of authorship. J. Med. Ethics 26 422-426. 

By 1996, the Guidelines were firmly entrenched and growing rapidly. The VDUAC was responsible for the production of the manuscripts, and the VMPF-TC for publication, distribution, promotion, and evaluation of the books. The number of titles was increased the target group was extended to include community practice and authorship was widened to ensure input from the most eminent Australian experts. 

Based on the overall publications record in top journals and authorship of highly cited and hot papers, combined with the virtual congress results, the U.S. is the leader or is among the leaders in macromolecular chemistry. 

An interesting discussion of the tension between the gift and the commodity economies can be found in the recent book, Who Owns Academic Work, by Corynne McSherry (2001). McSherry traces the history of the concept of authorship and the relationship between the commonwealth of ideas and an individual creation. This tension also exists in science where every discovery is based on a wealth of prior research. In contemporary society, intellectual property right is an area where ethics, public policy, and law become strongly entangled (Nelkin 1984). 

The ROS reference series is an established institution. That is the main reason Wiley Sons decided to continue its publication. In accepting an invitation to authorship with great trepidation, I can only hope that my feeble efforts will prove to be more than merely using a dog s tail to substitute for a mink s. mmm)... 

I am hoping with Professor Zaikov to give the Polymer yearbook a new look in subsequent issues. We will be attempting to incorporate a broader authorship and also produce issues that will focus on specific topics. Lastly, may I thank the readers for their support of the publication and I trust that you will find the articles we have selected of interest. 

Open authorship Creating content for public consumption and modification... 

Some of the best work to date on the nature and ethics of authorship has been done by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The most current version of its work is contained in a 2013 document Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Joimials. Recommendations are made on five authorship-related topics the nature of authorship, responsibilities of authors (including matters related to conflicts of interest), responsibilities of authors and referees in the submission and peer-review processes, responsibilities of journal owners, and the protection of research participants. ... 

---