| 查看: 4425 | 回复: 18 | |||
| 当前只显示满足指定条件的回帖，点击这里查看本话题的所有回帖 | |||
[交流]
互挂通讯大家怎么看 已有17人参与
|
|||
|
会不会有不好的影响？ [ 发自手机版 http://muchong.com/3g ] |
回复此楼» 猜你喜欢
极限拉扯，如何抉择
已经有5人回复
-
课题组会帮你通过考核么？
已经有6人回复
-
OpenAI又攻克数学难题了，离AI做有机合成还有多远？
已经有7人回复
-
售一区SCI文章T0P，我:8O.551.O54,科目全,可十急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8O5.5.1.O5.4,科目全,可伽急
已经有10人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有8人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O55.1.O.54,科目全,可十急
已经有9人回复
-
售SCI一区文章，我:8.O.55.1.O.54,科目齐全,可伽急
已经有7人回复
-
售SCI文章，我:8O5.5.1.O.54,科目齐全,可+急
已经有10人回复
-
售SCI一区T0P文章，我:8.O.55.1.O54,科目全,可伽急
已经有9人回复
fengzha
木虫 (著名写手)
- 应助: 8 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 5830.4
- 散金: 1000
- 红花: 16
- 帖子: 1198
- 在线: 1400.4小时
- 虫号: 1373442
- 注册: 2011-08-19
- 专业: 人工智能与知识工程
11楼2015-05-31 23:21:45
198782
金虫 (正式写手)
电镀制药生物
- 应助: 3 (幼儿园)
- 金币: 1528.8
- 散金: 30
- 红花: 2
- 帖子: 523
- 在线: 117小时
- 虫号: 3250488
- 注册: 2014-06-03
- 性别: GG
- 专业: 有机金属化学
2楼2015-05-31 14:30:13
WolfYang
至尊木虫 (职业作家)
- 应助: 138 (高中生)
- 金币: 16895.4
- 红花: 11
- 帖子: 3080
- 在线: 932.4小时
- 虫号: 2496982
- 注册: 2013-06-05
- 专业: 力学中的基本问题和方法
3楼2015-05-31 14:55:38
★ ★ ★
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
sculhf: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2015-05-31 16:29:09
小木虫: 金币+0.5, 给个红包，谢谢回帖
sculhf: 金币+2, 鼓励交流 2015-05-31 16:29:09
|
Bhandari M, Guyatt GH, Kulkarni AV, Devereaux PJ, Leece P, Bajammal S, Heels-Ansdell D, Busse JW (2014) Perceptions of authors' contributions are influenced by both byline order and designation of corresponding author. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 67: 1049-1054 Abstract Objectives We explored how readers interpret authors' roles based on authorship order and corresponding author. Study Design and Setting We conducted a cross-sectional survey of all 291 Surgical and Medical Chairpersons across North America. We developed hypothetical study and authorship bylines with five authors varying the corresponding author as first or last author. Respondents reported their perceptions about the authors' roles in the study and the most prestigious authorship position. We used multinomial regression to explore the results. Results One hundred sixty-five chairpersons (response rate: 57%) completed our survey. When the first author was designated as corresponding author, most of the respondents assumed that this author had taken the lead in study design (55.3%) and analysis and interpretation of data (51.2%). When the last author (fifth) was designated as corresponding, perceptions of the first author's role in study concept and design (odds ratio [OR] = 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.15, 0.41) and analysis and interpretation of results (OR = 0.22, 95% CI: 0.13, 0.38) decreased significantly. Overall prestige of the last author position increased significantly when designated as corresponding author (OR = 4.0, 95% CI: 2.4, 6.4). Conclusions Academic department chairs' perception of authors' contributions was influenced by corresponding author designation. Without authors' explicit contributions in research articles, many readers may draw false conclusions about author credit and accountability. |
4楼2015-05-31 15:02:48
