Scientific authorship: why so much controversy?

Criteria for scientific authorship still lack of universal consensus among scientists, thus rising speculations that, sometimes, only justify the unjustifiable. In this text, my focus is the empirical science and I propose that participation in data collection (DC) or provision of material resources...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gilson L. Volpato
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sindicato das Secretárias do Estado de São Paulo 2016-09-01
Series:GeSec
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.revistagesec.org.br/secretariado/article/view/597
Description
Summary:Criteria for scientific authorship still lack of universal consensus among scientists, thus rising speculations that, sometimes, only justify the unjustifiable. In this text, my focus is the empirical science and I propose that participation in data collection (DC) or provision of material resources (MR) for the research are neither sufficient, nor necessary, conditions to warrant authorship in scientific texts. After presenting the main theoretical bases of my argument, I show some data supporting that such participations (DC and/or MR) have been largely used for assignment of scientific authorship in the international literature, thus making this debate more relevant. Finally, I propose separate the participation in a scientific study in three classes: authorship, collaboration and acknowledgements, thus valorizing each of these participations, but not contradicting its peculiarities in the process of building scientific knowledge.
ISSN:2178-9010