Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices?

Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthine...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 2001-05, Vol.52 (7), p.558-569
Main Author: Cronin, Blaise
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
17th century
Academic discourse
Authoring
Authority
Authors
Authorship
Biomedicine
Co authorship
Collaboration
Communication (Thought Transfer)
Communication. Information transfer
Communications systems
Ethical standards
Ethics
Exact sciences and technology
Information and communication sciences
Information Science
Information science. Documentation
Library and information science
Library and information science. General aspects
Medical research
Periodicals
Postmodernism
Scholarly communication
Scholarly publishing
Sciences and techniques of general use
Scientists
Studies
Trends
Trustworthiness
Writers
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Classical assumptions about the nature and ethical entailments of authorship (the standard model) are being challenged by developments in scientific collaboration and multiple authorship. In the biomedical research community, multiple authorship has increased to such an extent that the trustworthiness of the scientific communication system has been called into question. Documented abuses, such as honorific authorship, have serious implications in terms of the acknowledgment of authority, allocation of credit, and assigning of accountability. Within the biomedical world it has been proposed that authors be replaced by lists of contributors (the radical model), whose specific inputs to a given study would be recorded unambiguously. The wider implications of the ‘hyperauthorship’ phenomenon for scholarly publication are considered.
ISSN:1532-2882
2330-1635
1532-2890
2330-1643
DOI:10.1002/asi.1097