智库研究成果认定中作者权益归属的原则与方法

An Analysis of Authorship Attribution:Recognition of the Contributions of Individual Authors of Muti-Authored Reports

[目的/意义]在过去的50年中,单作者和多作者发表论文的情况发生了巨大变化。多作者论文中作者署名的排序问题已被证明是影响研究人员职业发展的重要因素。[方法/过程]本文介绍了确定作者贡献的几种常见做法以及姓名排序对学术生涯的影响,回顾了4家在此领域有丰富管理经验的智库的做法,并提出了一个从作者排序中可以客观识别对应贡献的成熟模型。此模型的关键之处在于,其中包含一个申诉的程序,当研究团队成员认为其贡献未在标题页的作者排序中得到充分体现时,通过搜集可支持的证据便可启动此申诉程序。另外,还介绍了“作者委员会”的任务和结构,该委员会旨在解决作者在论文发表前提出的投诉。[结果/结论]智库和学术研究部门在学术成果的研究与出版过程中分配不公的问题由来已久。有理由假设,随着时间的推移,参与每个研究项目的研究人员数量剧增,问题数量也会与日俱增。智库可以根据人事专员和知识渊博的研究员之间的私下沟通调整智库的政策和程序,因为这些人员鲜有机会领导团队,了解其对机构当前作者排名的实践经验中的观点,可能会对智库发展大有裨益。

[Purpose/significance]Over the past 50 years,the mix of single-author versus multi-author published academic articles has witnessed a dramatic shift.The issue of the order in which authors in multi-author articles are listed has been documented to be an important factor influencing authors’career development.[Method/process]This paper introduces the several current practices in author contributions and then some results name ordering has on academic careers.It also reviews the practices of four well-managed think tanks.It then presents a well-developed concept for objectively recognizing contributions in author-ordering.Critically,it includes adoption of an appeals process that a member of a research team could use if he believes,and can support,that his contribution has not been fully appreciated in ordering authors’names on the title page.The tasks and structure of an“Authorship Committee”that would resolve complaints raised by authors prior to publication are outlined.[Result/conclusion]The issue of unfair allocation of credit for the development and publication of research products at think tanks and academic departments has long existed.It is reasonable to suppose that it has increased over time as the number of analysts participating in each research project has increased so sharply.Think tanks’development will likely benefit from private discussions between human resources staff and knowledgeable researchers with few team-leadership opportunities about their experience with the organization’s current authorship-ranking practices.