Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science Advance praise for Scientific Authorship'. ‘“ What is an author?’ is a question that has been central to cultural and literary studies for almost thirty years. This collection of essays opens up genuinely new perspectives on this question and shows us how much science studies has to contribute to fundamental issues in the humanities.” —Arnold I. Davidson, University of Chicago This page intentionally left blank SC I E N T I F I C A u t h o r s h ip Credit and Intellectual Property in Science ED ITE D BY M a r io B ia g io l i & P e t e r G a l is o n |J Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2003 by Routledge Published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2003 by Taylor 8c Francis Books, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. “Uncommon Controversies” is abridged and adapted by permission of the publisher and the author from Who Owns Academic Work?: Battling for Control of Intellectual Property by Corynne McSherry, pp. 68-100, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College. Cataloging-in-Publication data is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 13: 978-0-415-94293-5 (hbk) C o n t e n t s A cknowledgments VII Introduction I MARIO BIAGIOLI AND PETER GALISON PART i: EMERGENCE OF AUTHORSHIP 1. F o u c a u l t ’s C h ia s m u s 13 Authorship between Science and Literature in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries ROGER CHARTIER 2. B u t t er fo r P a r s n ip s 3 3 Authorship, Audience, and the Incomprehensibility of the Principia ROB ILIFFE 3. T he A m b iv a l e n c e o f A u t h o r s h ip in Early M o d e r n N a t u r a l P h il o s o p h y 6 7 ADRIAN JOHNS A. The Uses of Anonymity in the Age of Reason 91 MARY TERRALL 5. C an A r t is a n s B e S c ie n t if ic A u t h o r s ? I 13 The Unique Case of Fraunhofer’s Artisanal Optics and the German Republic of Letters MYLES W. JACKSON 6 . "A V ery H a r d N ut to C r a c k ” 133 or Making Sense of Maxwell’s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in Mid-Victorian Cambridge ANDREW WARWICK PART II: LIMITS OF AUTHORSHIP 7. E m e r g e n t R e l a t io n s 1 65 MARILYN STRATHERN 8. B e y o n d A u t h o r s h ip 1 95 Refiguring Rights in Traditional Culture and Bioknowledge PETER JASZI AND MARTHA WOODMANSEE 9 . U n c o m m o n C ontroversies 225 Legal Mediations of Gift and Market Models of Authorship CORYNNE MCSHERRY PART III: THE FRAGMENTATION OF AUTHORSHIP IO. R ig h t s o r R e w a r d s ? 253 Changing Frameworks of Scientific Authorship MARIO BIAGIOLI I I. T he D eath o f t h e A u t h o r s o f D eath 2 81 Prestige and Creativity among Nuclear Weapons Scientists HUGH GUSTERSON 12. " D is c o u r s e s o f C ircumstance ” 3 0 9 A Note on the Author in Science HANS-JORG RHEINBERGER 13. T he C o l l e c t iv e A u t h o r 3 2 5 PETER GALISON PART IV: COMMENTARIES E nd C r e d it s 3 5 9 TOM CONLEY W hat Is N o t a S c ie n t if ic A u t h o r ? 3 6 9 MARK ROSE CONTRIBUTORS 3 7 3 INDEX 3 7 5 A cknowledgments This volume has developed from the papers presented at the confer­ ence on “What Is a Scientific Author?” held at Harvard in March 1997 with support from the National Science Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, and Harvard University. We would like to thank Elizabeth Lee, Beatrice Lewin Dumin, Colin Milburn, Alisha Rankin, Elly Truitt, and especially Kristina Stewart for all their help in preparing the manuscript for publication. This page intentionally left blank Introduction MARIO BIAGIOLI AND PETER GALISON More than thirty years ago Michel Foucault reframed the analysis of authorship by asking questions that were simultaneously theoretical and mundane, questions that cut across disciplines as diverse as bibli­ ography, philosophy, literary studies, history, and library management. What does it mean to classify a certain body of texts as belonging to a certain author? How do categories of author and work relate to and constitute each other? Is the name of the author like any other personal noun, or does it have other functions? How does the relationship between the authors name and the epistemological status of claims vary across different disciplines? What does that tell us about the discursive regimes in which those disciplines operate?1 Studies of authorship have covered much ground and have spread in many different directions since the appearance of Foucault s “What Is an Author?” The function of the author has become a standard research question in literary studies, history of the book, legal studies, art and film history, postcolonial studies, anthropology, and gender studies.2 In recent years these issues have moved from academic to public discourse, propelled by the development of Internet culture, the aggressive use of intellectual property law by corporations eager to regiment global markets, and growing concerns about the appro­ priation of public knowledge and cultural heritages resulting from these corporate trends.3 However, despite the increasing visibility of these issues across disciplines and cultural spheres, scientific author- 2 INTRODUCTION ship has attracted very little attention—at least from the humanities and social sciences. But if scientific authorship has yet to become an object of scholarly and philosophical discourse, it has been the cause of great professional concern among the scientists, especially in today’s vast, multiauthor collaborations. The assignment of credit in large-scale biological, computer science, and physics collaborations is a major issue for young scientists; it hits every aspect of their career trajectories, from thesis writing to hiring and promotion. Physicists have long been debating what the Nobel Prize means in an age when two thousand scientists sign a single paper. The hundreds of authors listed in the byline of a biomedical paper reporting the result of a large clinical trial ask the same questions about the meaning and definition of authorship. And so do the editors of the journals who review those manuscripts, and the academic committees, departmental chairs, and deans who have to make hiring or tenure decisions based on CVs listing those publica­ tions. For all these reasons, the authorship debate in science has been entirely practical, and has generated thousands of administrative memos, policy statements, guidelines, articles, editorials, reports, and heated letters to the editor.4 These issues, however, have important theoretical implications. Given the combination of literary, philosophical, economic, historical, and scientific issues raised by scientific authorship, it would seem a perfect site for an encounter between many kinds of scholarship. And motivations for this convergence would not seem to be lacking given the remarkable concerns about intellectual property found at all levels of science and technology policy and, increasingly, in everyday univer­ sity life.5 While the U.S. government has become concerned with the intellectual property status of the genome, universities engage more intimately with the private sector for funding and collaborations, and rely more frequently and aggressively on intellectual property law to mobilize their “knowledge capital.”6 In a time when whole academic departments sell intellectual rights of first refusal to pharmaceutical companies, any university ignoring such issues would be hiding its collective head in the sand. And the trend is not limited to science and engineering. Some universities, for instance, are expanding their intel­ lectual property claims down to course syllabi in the hope that they may INTRODUCTION 3 be turned into profitable resources for distance-learning ventures. This means that, for the first time, academics from all ranks and disciplines are witnessing the arrival of intellectual property law on campus and have to confront, usually with unease, the tensions between the tradi­ tional ethos of academic authorship and the logic of property and the market. But if some of the problems and tensions that have long char­ acterized scientific authorship are now beginning to be experienced or perceived by a much wider range of academics, this has not translated into cross-disciplinary reflections on the nature and problems of acad­ emic and scientific authorship. For instance, most discussions of scientific authorship have not shared many questions or tools with other kinds of authorship studies. To the extent that history of science and science studies have taken up the question of authorship, it has largely been to reduce the function of authorship to the construction of authority: Whose word counts in pre­ senting scientific results? How does this authority shape the conduct and resolution of scientific disputes? In this sense, science studies has asked questions that are comparable to those posed by literary studies when it analyzes the construction of the authorial voice.
Recommended publications
  • Republik Oesterreich
    REPUBLIK ÖSTERREICH Organe der Bundesgesetzgebung. Wien, I/1, Parlamentsring 3, Tel. A19-500/9 Serie, A24-5-75. Dienststunden: Montag bis Freitag von 8 bis 16 Uhr, Samstag von 8 bis 12 Uhr. Nationalrat. Präsident: Leopold Kunschak. Zweiter Präsident: Johann Böhm. Dritter Präsident: Dr. Alfons Gorbach. Mitglieder. Cerny Theodor, Steinmetz- _ Scheff Otto, Dr., Rechtsanwalt; meister; Gmünd. ÖVP. Maria-Enzersdorf. ÖVP. (LB. = LirLksblock, Kommunistische Partei Österreichs. Dengler Josef, Arbeitersekretär; Scheibenreif Alois, Bauer; ÖVP. = Österreichische Volkspartei. — Wien. ÖVP. Reith 5 bei Neunkirchen. ÖVP. SPÖ. = Sozialistische Partei Österreichs. — VdU. = Verband der Unabhängigen.) Ehrenfried Anton, Beamter; Schneeberger Pius, Forstarbeiter; Hollabrunn. ÖVP. Wien. Burgenland. Eichinger Karl, Bauer; Wind— _ Seidl Georg, Bauer; Gaubitsch 76, passing 6. ÖVP. Post Unterstinkenbrunn. ÖVP Böhm Johann, Zweiter Präsident des Nationalrates; Wien. SPÖ. Figl Leopold, Dr. h. c., Ing., Singer Rudolf, Aufzugsmonteur; Bundeskanzler; Wien. ÖVP. St. Pölten. SPÖ. Frisch Anton, Hofrat, Landes— schulinspektor; Wien, ÖVP. Fischer Leopold, Weinbauer; Solar Lola, Fachlehrerin; Wien- Sooß, Post Baden bei Wien. ÖVP. Mödling. ÖVP. Nedwal Andreas, Landwirt; Gerersdorf bei Güssing. ÖVP. Floßmann Ferdinanda. Strasser Peter, Techniker; Wien. SPÖ. Privatangestellte; Wien. SPÖ. Nemecz Alexander, Dr., Rechts- Strommer Josef, Bauer; Mold 4, anwalt; Oberwarth 119 b. ÖVP. Frühwirth Michael, Textilarbeiter; Post Horn. Wien-Atzgersdorf. SPÖ. Proksch Anton, Leitender Sekretär Tschadck Otto, Dr., Bundes— des ÖGB.; Wien. SPÖ. Gasmlich Anton, Dr., Professor; Wien, VdU. minister für Justiz; Wien, SPÖ. Rosenberger Paul, Landwirt; Wallner Josef, Holzgroßhändler; DeutschJahrndorf 169. SPÖ. Gindler Anton, Bauer; Perndorf 13, Post Schweiggers. ÖVP. Amstetten, ÖVP. Strobl Franz, Ing., Landes- Widmayer Heinrich, Verwalter; forstdirektor; Wien. ÖVP. Gschweidl Rudolf, Lagerhalter; Puchberg am Schneeberg, Sier— Wien.
    [Show full text]
  • TRINITY COLLEGE Cambridge Trinity College Cambridge College Trinity Annual Record Annual
    2016 TRINITY COLLEGE cambridge trinity college cambridge annual record annual record 2016 Trinity College Cambridge Annual Record 2015–2016 Trinity College Cambridge CB2 1TQ Telephone: 01223 338400 e-mail: [email protected] website: www.trin.cam.ac.uk Contents 5 Editorial 11 Commemoration 12 Chapel Address 15 The Health of the College 18 The Master’s Response on Behalf of the College 25 Alumni Relations & Development 26 Alumni Relations and Associations 37 Dining Privileges 38 Annual Gatherings 39 Alumni Achievements CONTENTS 44 Donations to the College Library 47 College Activities 48 First & Third Trinity Boat Club 53 Field Clubs 71 Students’ Union and Societies 80 College Choir 83 Features 84 Hermes 86 Inside a Pirate’s Cookbook 93 “… Through a Glass Darkly…” 102 Robert Smith, John Harrison, and a College Clock 109 ‘We need to talk about Erskine’ 117 My time as advisor to the BBC’s War and Peace TRINITY ANNUAL RECORD 2016 | 3 123 Fellows, Staff, and Students 124 The Master and Fellows 139 Appointments and Distinctions 141 In Memoriam 155 A Ninetieth Birthday Speech 158 An Eightieth Birthday Speech 167 College Notes 181 The Register 182 In Memoriam 186 Addresses wanted CONTENTS TRINITY ANNUAL RECORD 2016 | 4 Editorial It is with some trepidation that I step into Boyd Hilton’s shoes and take on the editorship of this journal. He managed the transition to ‘glossy’ with flair and panache. As historian of the College and sometime holder of many of its working offices, he also brought a knowledge of its past and an understanding of its mysteries that I am unable to match.
    [Show full text]
  • Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud,' Charges BMJ Deborah Brauser Authors and Disclosures
    Autism and MMR Vaccine Study an 'Elaborate Fraud,' Charges BMJ Deborah Brauser Authors and Disclosures January 6, 2011 — BMJ is publishing a series of 3 articles and editorials charging that the study published in The Lancet in 1998 by Andrew Wakefield and colleagues linking the childhood measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine to a "new syndrome" of regressive autism and bowel disease was not just bad science but "an elaborate fraud." According to the first article published in BMJ today by London-based investigative reporter Brian Deer, the study's investigators altered and falsified medical records and facts, misrepresented information to families, and treated the 12 children involved unethically. In addition, Mr. Wakefield accepted consultancy fees from lawyers who were building a lawsuit against vaccine manufacturers, and many of the study participants were referred by an antivaccine organization. In an accompanying editorial, BMJ Editor-in-Chief Fiona Godlee, MD, Deputy BMJ Editor Jane Smith, and Associate BMJ Editor Harvey Marcovitch write that there is no doubt that Mr. Wakefield perpetrated fraud. "A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in 1 direction; misreporting was gross." A great deal of thought and effort must have gone into drafting the paper to achieve the results he wanted: the discrepancies all led in 1 direction; misreporting was gross. Although The Lancet published a retraction of the study last year right after the UK General Medical Council (GMC) announced that the investigators acted "dishonestly" and irresponsibly," the BMJ editors Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships
    Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships Purpose: To sustain and protect academic freedom, academic professionalism, research integrity, and public trust. Dedicated to the memory of Victor J. Stone (AAUP President, 1982–84), University of Illinois College of Law AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS Distributed by the University of Illinois Press To impart the results of their own and their fellow specialists’ investigations and reflection, both to students and to the general public, without fear or favor . requires (among other things) that the university teacher shall be exempt from any pecuniary motive or inducement to hold, or to express, any conclusion which is not the genuine and uncolored product of his own study or that of fellow specialists. Indeed, the proper fulfillment of the work of the professoriate requires that our universities shall be so free that no fair- minded person shall find any excuse for even a suspicion that the utterances of university teachers are shaped or restricted by the judgment, not of profes- sional scholars, but of inexpert and possibly not wholly disinterested persons outside of their own ranks. To the degree that professional scholars, in the formation and promulgation of their opinions, are, or by the character of their tenure appear to be, subject to any motive other than their own sci- entific conscience and a desire for the respect of their fellow experts, to that degree the university teaching profession is corrupted; its proper influence upon public opinion is diminished, and vitiated; and society at large fails to get from its scholars, in an unadulterated form, the peculiar and necessary service which it is the office of the professional scholar to furnish.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Transfer in Group-Authored Scientific Publications | Jaime A
    Insights – 34, 2021 Copyright transfer in group-authored scientific publications | Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Aceil Al-Khatib Copyright transfer in group- authored scientific publications Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and authorship-related rules have been respected. Copyright transfer is a central issue in the flow of scientific information. To familiarize more academics with this topic, we examine the issue of copyright transfer from authors to a publisher. A key argument is the potential invalidation of a copyright transfer agreement if one or some of the co-authors do not authorize the transferring author to sign the agreement on their behalf. Keywords collaboration; copyright; ethics; guest; ghost and gift authorship; joint authorship JAIME A. TEIXEIRA DA SILVA Independent Academic authorship researcher Authorship is of great importance in science publishing and has multiple functions,1 including intellectual contribution for the research conducted,2 and responsibility and accountability for the published work,3 as a currency for the quality of the published research and as credit for the authors as they advance their scientific careers.4 Collaborative research projects involve the division of professional labour to achieve desired objectives and this has caused a global expansion in the number of multi-authored publications.5 In the face of increasing collaboration globally,6 even though multiple authorship became ACEIL AL-KHATIB common in the past decade or so,7 until quite recently, there were considerable differences Associate Professor and disparities in the definitions of authorship among leading publishers, ethical bodies, or Department of Oral 8 in the ethical guidelines of research institutes and universities.
    [Show full text]
  • $ C^ 3$-Index: a Pagerank Based Multi-Faceted Metric for Authors
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) C3-index: A PageRank based multi-faceted metric for authors’ performance measurement Dinesh Pradhan · Partha Sarathi Paul · Umesh Maheswari · Subrata Nandi · Tanmoy Chakraborty∗ Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Ranking scientific authors is an important but challenging task, mostly due to the dynamic nature of the evolving scientific publications. The basic indicators of an author’s productivity and impact are still the number of publications and the citation count (leading to the popular metrics such as h-index, g-index etc.). H-index and its popular variants are mostly effective in ranking highly-cited authors, thus fail to resolve ties while ranking medium- cited and low-cited authors who are majority in number. Therefore, these metrics are inefficient to predict the ability of promising young researchers at the beginning of their career. In this paper, we propose C3-index that combines the effect of citations and collaborations of an author in a systematic way using a weighted multi-layered network to rank authors. We conduct our experiments on a massive publication dataset of Computer Science and show that – (i) C3- index is consistent over time, which is one of the fundamental characteristics of a ranking metric, (ii) C3-index is as efficient as h-index and its variants to rank highly-cited authors, (iii) C3-index can act as a conflict resolution metric to break ties in the ranking of medium-cited and low-cited authors, (iv) C3- index can also be used to predict future achievers at the early stage of their career.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Beliefs and Attitudes About Authorial Identity in Academic Writing
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UDORA - University of Derby Online Research Archive Authorial identity Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing Gail Pittam,a* James Elander,b Joanne Lusher,c Pauline Foxd & Nicola Paynee a. Faculty of Health & Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, UK b. Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby, UK c. Department of Psychology, London Metropolitan University, UK d. Department of Psychology, Thames Valley University, London, UK e. Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK Correspondence: [email protected] Cite as: Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153-170. Abstract Authorial identity is the sense a writer has of themselves as an author and the textual identity they construct in their writing. This paper describes two studies exploring psychology students’ authorial identity in academic writing. A qualitative focus group study with 19 students showed that authorial identity was largely unfamiliar to students, and highlighted the obstacles perceived by students to constructing authorial identities in university assignments. A questionnaire survey of 318 students explored the factor structure of an 18-item Student Authorship Questionnaire (SAQ). Three factors described aspects of student authorial identity (‘confidence in writing’, ‘understanding authorship’ and ‘knowledge to avoid plagiarism’), and three factors described approaches to writing (‘top-down’, ‘bottom-up’ and ‘pragmatic’). Confidence in writing and knowledge to avoid plagiarism were significantly higher among year two than year one students. Both studies could inform interventions to reduce unintentional plagiarism by improving students’ authorial identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Chesterfield Wfa
    CHESTERFIELD WFA Newsletter and Magazine issue 53 Co-Patrons -Sir Hew Strachan & Prof. Peter Simkins Welcome to Issue 53 - the May 2020 Newsletter and Magazine of President - Professor Gary Sheffield MA PhD FRHistS Chesterfield WFA. FRSA Vice-Presidents In view of the current public health Andre Colliot pandemic engulfing the globe, your Professor John Bourne BA PhD committee took the prudent FRHistS decision, before the introduction of The Burgomaster of Ypres Government legislation, to cancel the The Mayor of Albert April, May and June Meetings of the Lt-Col Graham Parker OBE Branch. Christopher Pugsley FRHistS Lord Richard Dannat GCB CBE MC Meetings and other activities will be DL restarted as and when the authorities Roger Lee PhD jssc deem it safe for us to do so. Dr Jack Sheldon In the interim this Newsletter / Magazine will Branch contacts continue Tony Bolton (Chairman) We would urge all our members to adopt all the anthony.bolton3@btinternet .com government`s regulations that way we can keep safe Mark Macartney (Deputy Chairman) and hopefully this crisis will be controlled, the virus [email protected] defeated, and a degree of normality restored. Jane Lovatt (Treasurer) Grant Cullen (Secretary) Stay safe everybody – we are all – in the meantime - [email protected] Facebook `Confined to Barracks` http://www.facebook.com/g roups/157662657604082/ Grant Cullen – Branch Secretary http://www.wfachesterfield.com/ Western Front Association Chesterfield Branch – Meetings 2020 Meetings start at 7.30pm and take place at the Labour Club, Unity House, Saltergate, Chesterfield S40 1NF January 7th . AGM and Members Night – presentations by Jane Ainsworth, Ed Fordham, Judith Reece, Edwin Astill and Alan Atkinson February 4th Graham Kemp `The Impact of the economic blockage of Germany AFTER the armistice and how it led to WW2` March 3rd Peter Hart Après la Guerre Post-war blues, demobilisation and a home fit for very few.
    [Show full text]
  • Dr Fiona Godlee
    QUARTER ONE / 2017 INSIGHT A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION FOR MEMBERS DR FIONA GODLEE DEMENTIA DENTISTRY ON MAKING AN APP FRIENDING DILEMMA Profile of the BMJ editor A new toolkit offers guidance What goes into the Is it ever okay to accept a and campaigning medical on providing dental care to development and testing of a Facebook Friend request from journalist dementia patients medical app? a patient? QUARTER ONE / 2017 Editor Dr Barry Parker 10 12 Managing editor Jim Killgore Associate editor Joanne Curran Editorial departments Medical Dr Richard Brittain Dental Mr Aubrey Craig Legal Simon Dinnick Design and production Connect Communications 19 0131 561 0020 www.connectmedia.cc Printing and distribution L&S Litho Correspondence Insight Editor MDDUS Mackintosh House 120 Blythswood Street Glasgow G2 4EA Photograph: Magda Rakita Photograph: [email protected] 4 MDDUS news 16 Case files QUARTER ONE / 2017 INSIGHT 6 News digest Decade of neglect, Google gaffe, A QUARTERLY PUBLICATION FOR MEMBERS Transgender records, Recurrent cancer, 8 Briefing Out of scope, He said, she said Can we reduce overtreatment? 20 Dilemma 9 Risk Do I accept a “Friend” request from Free will in consent a patient? DR FIONA GODLEE DEMENTIA DENTISTRY ON MAKING AN APP FRIENDING DILEMMA Profile of the BMJ editor A new toolkit offers guidance What goes into the Is it ever okay to accept a and campaigning medical on providing dental care to development and testing of a Facebook Friend request from journalist dementia patients medical app? a patient? 10 The accidental editor 21 Ethics COVER IMAGE Adam Campbell meets Dr Fiona A vice-like grip on virtue Nor any drop to drink, Gail Lemasurier Godlee, the forthright BMJ editor not Screenprint, 1993 afraid to take a stand 22 Addenda Gail studied fine art printmaking at Manchester Book choice: A is for arsenic, 12 Making a medical app Metropolitan University and graduated in 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • PODCAST TRANSCRIPT the RECOMMENDED DOSE with RAY MOYNIHAN | Australia.Cochrane.Org/Trd EPISODE 1
    PODCAST TRANSCRIPT THE RECOMMENDED DOSE WITH RAY MOYNIHAN | australia.cochrane.org/trd EPISODE 1 - Dr Fiona Godlee, Editor-in-Chief of the BMJ (British Medical Journal) 18 October 2017 Ray Moynihan: Hello, and welcome to The Recommended Dose, a podcast encouraging a more questioning approach to healthcare. Today, it's our great privilege to feature Dr. Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the British Medical Journal, one of the oldest and most influential journals in the world, which has a reputation for upsetting vested interests. Pushing, for example, for much greater transparency about [00:00:30] the ties between doctors and drug companies, or as Fiona says, stirring up hornets' nests. And as we'll hear, while she leads one of the top doctors' journals on the planet, owned by the British Medical Association, or BMA, she's actually not that keen on visiting doctors herself, unless it's really necessary. Fiona Godlee: I think I'm one of those people who'd rather not take pills if I don't have to, and rather not see doctors if I don't have to, so that's my bias. Ray Moynihan: [00:01:00] Whether you're a hardened researcher, a hard-working student or health professional, someone running a hospital or health system, and especially if you don't work within the world of medicine, I have no doubt you'll love listening to the BMJ's editor in chief, Fiona Godlee, and hear her stirring up a few more hornets' nests. Fiona Godlee: Well thanks Ray, I do see it as a privilege.
    [Show full text]
  • Irresponsible Authorship: a Growing Typology
    Steven Engel and April Johnson Irresponsible Authorship: A Growing Typology Academic spam email (ASE) has become its own specific subgenre. ASE includes messages from predatory journals offering quick and painless processes, opportunities to serve on editorial boards, or calls to present at dubious conferences (Wood and Krasowski). Like all electronic communication, ASE takes time to read, sort, and delete. In a study of recipients of the 2015 National Institute of Health’s K Award (a competitive career development funding mechanism), all respondents reported receiving academic spam emails daily, and over 15% of awardees indicated that they spent over 10 minutes a day dealing with them (Wilkinson, et al). In addition to being a nuisance, academic spam emails can provide challenges for new faculty members who are less able to determine the legitimacy of the quality of the offers due to a lack of experience. Even well-mentored developing researchers might be unsure of who to ask for guidance about the deluge of questionable opportunities. And because of this never-ending stream of email, it can be an additional challenge to determine when and how often to make the request. These spam emails range from ones that appear to be legitimate publishing venues or conferences to those that blatantly invite the receiver to commit fraud. Some feel like they are a mash-up of translated politeness moves, mail-merge errors, and a lack of understanding about the expectations of academics. Others are amusing in their boldness or cluelessness. But underlying many of these spam emails are elements that bring to the surface the array of ways that authorship can be abused in scholarly writing.
    [Show full text]
  • CUADERNOS DE AJEDREZ PMQVNT Horacio Sistac RSLWKZ
    Año 5 Abril 2012 Nro. 52 CUADERNOS DE AJEDREZ PMQVNT Horacio Sistac RSLWKZ Aperturas contra Schlechter, todas contra el Gambito Bu- dapest. Apertura de Peón Dama Tras este torneo, la Defensa Budapest Gambito Budapest comenzó a ser tratada seriamente al punto de Variante Adler que jugadores de la talla de Savielly Tartakower y Siegbert Tarrasch comenzaron a emplearla Historia asiduamente. Nos cuenta la historia que este supues- Como era de esperar, la comunidad aje- to1 gambito, también denominado Defensa Bu- drecística comenzó a buscar el antídoto a esta dapest, fue practicado por primera vez a manos defensa y, por supuesto, el abanderado fue Ale- de Géza Maróczy en un torneo disputado en la xander Alekhine quien con victorias sobre Ilya ciudad de Budapest en el año 1896, motivo por Rabinovich (Baden-Baden, 1925) y Adolf Seitz el cual adoptó esta denominación. (Hastings, 1925-26) demostró la fortaleza de las blancas tras 4. e4 …. Si bien esta partida, la primera de la que se cuenta registro, contó al genial húngaro El mismo Reti empleó la Defensa Bu- como protagonista, tal vez el hecho de que la dapest en 5 oportunidades durante el período haya disputado contra un jugador de rango 1919-1926 con apenas 1 ½ puntos a su favor. Lo intermedio –un tal Adler2- no mereció el análisis propio le aconteció a Tartakower en 1928 en de los expertos, a excepción de algunos testigos que la utilizara 4 veces con tan solo ½ punto en como Abonyi, Barasz y Gyula Meyer, todos su score. ellos también húngaros, quienes efectuaron al- gunos desarrollos posteriores.
    [Show full text]