Downloads/Netzwerk Und Leopold Voss, Hamburg, 1904
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
2532-3997 March 2021 March Vol. 5 - n. 1 2021 Vol. 5 – n. 1 5 – n. Vol. SubstantiaAn International Journal of the History of Chemistry Substantia An International Journal of the History of Chemistry FIRENZE PRESSUNIVERSITY Substantia An International Journal of the History of Chemistry Vol. 5, n. 1 - 2021 Firenze University Press Substantia. An International Journal of the History of Chemistry Published by Firenze University Press – University of Florence, Italy Via Cittadella, 7 - 50144 Florence - Italy http://www.fupress.com/substantia Direttore Responsabile: Romeo Perrotta, University of Florence, Italy Cover image: Polarized light micrograph (magnification 40x) of crystallized glycine, tartaric acid and resorcinol, by Edy Kieser, Ennenda, Switzerland. Courtesy of Nikon Small World (11th place, 2004 Photomicrography Competition, https:// www. nikonsmallworld.com). Copyright © 2021 Authors. The authors retain all rights to the original work without any restriction. Open Access. This issue is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY-4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give ap- propriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0 1.0) waiver applies to the data made available in this issue, unless otherwise stated. Substantia is honoured to declare the patronage of: No walls. Just bridges Substantia is a peer-reviewed, academic international journal dedicated to traditional perspectives as well as innovative and synergistic implications of history and philosophy of Chemistry. It is meant to be a crucible for discussions on science, on making science and its outcomes. Substantia hosts discussions on the connections between chemistry and other horizons of human activities, and on the historical aspects of chemistry. Substantia is published open access twice a year and offers top quality original full papers, essays, experimental works, reviews, biographies and dissemination manuscripts. All contributions are in English. EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Pierandrea Lo Nostro Department of Chemistry “Ugo Schiff” University of Florence, Italy phone: (+39) 055 457-3010 email: [email protected] - [email protected] ASSOCIATE EDITORS Virginia Mazzini Neil R. Cameron Australian National University, Australia Monash University, Australia University of Warwick, UK Stephen Hyde Ernst Kenndler Australian National University, Australia University of Vienna, Austria SCIENTIFIC BOARD as of 07 January 2021 Ferdinando Abbri Sarah Everts Barry W. Ninham University of Siena, Italy C&ENews, Berlin, Germany Australian National University, Australia Vincenzo Balzani Juan Manuel García-Ruiz University of Bologna, Italy University of Granada, Spain Mary Virginia Orna ChemSource. Inc, USA Marco Beretta Andrea Goti University of Bologna, Italy University of Florence, Italy Carla Rita Palmerino Center for the History of Philosophy Paolo Blasi Antonio Guarna and Science, The Netherlands University of Florence, Italy University of Florence, Italy Marc Henry Adrian V. Parsegian Elena Bougleux University of Strasbourg, France Univ. of Massachusetts Amherst, University of Bergamo, Italy Roald Hoffmann USA Salvatore Califano Cornell University, USA Seth C. Rasmussen University of Florence, Italy Ernst Homburg North Dakota State University, Luigi Campanella University of Maastricht, The Nether- USA University of Rome La Sapienza, Italy lands Jürgen Renn Andrea Cantini Stephen Hyde Max Planck Institute for the History University of Florence, Italy Australian National University, of Science, Germany Australia Louis Caruana Adrian Rennie Gregorian University of Rome, Italy Juergen Heinrich Maar University of Uppsala, Sweden Univ. Federal de Santa Catarina, Elena Castellani Vincenzo Schettino Brasil University of Florence, Italy University of Florence, Italy Roberto Livi Luigi Cerruti University of Florence, Italy Silvia Selleri University of Turin, Italy University of Florence, Italy Stjepan Marcelja Martin Chaplin Australian National University, Brigitte van Tiggelen London South Bank University, UK Australia Science History Institute, USA Marco Ciardi Pierluigi Minari Barbara Valtancoli University of Bologna, Italy University of Florence, Italy University of Florence, Italy Luigi Dei Juzo Nakayama Richard Weiss University of Florence, Italy Saitama University, Japan Georgetown University, USA EDITORIAL BOARD Simone Ciofi Baffoni, University of Florence, Italy Ilaria Palchetti, University of Florence, Italy Damiano Tanini, University of Florence, Italy ASSISTANT EDITOR Duccio Tatini, University of Florence, Italy MANAGING EDITOR Alessandro Pierno, Firenze University Press, Italy Firenze University Press www.fupress.com/substantia Editorial Giving Credit Where It’s Due – The Complicated Practice of Scientific Authorship Seth C. Rasmussen Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, North Dakota State University, Fargo, ND 58108 USA E-mail: [email protected] Anyone who has participated in modern scientific actual contributors are given no credit whatsoever (some- publishing has experienced the potentially complex issue times referred to as ghost authorship4). As such, the goal of coauthors, both in terms of who merits to be includ- here is to present various best practices in terms of both ed on a particular paper and in what order should they determining valid authorship, as well as addressing the be listed. During the early years of serial scientific pub- related issue of author order on a given publication. lications in the 17th and 18th centuries,1 nearly all papers For most researchers, the baseline requirement for consisted of just a single author. In contrast, the grow- authorship is that the researcher should have provided ing complexity of most present-day studies has required a real contribution to the reported work. Of course, this collaborative teams to accomplish the work needed to does not mean that all contributors should be authors present a suitable report meriting publication.2 Some and the sticking point is often determining what merits have attempted to tie this move to multiple-author papers authorship over a simple acknowledgement. One of the with the introduction of large-scale government fund- earliest attempts to define scientific authorship has been ing following World War II.3,4 While valid arguments quoted as2 can be made about the expansion of the scientific enter- prise at this point in history,4 simply browsing the con- …someone who has made significant contribution to the tents of prominent journals shows that papers with two project through planning, conceptualization, or research or more authors predated this event and were somewhat design; providing, collecting, or recording data; analyz- common by the second decade of the 20th century. Of ing or interpreting data; or writing and editing the manu- script. course, one can now easily find papers with 10 or more coauthors, further complicating the ability to properly The American Chemical Society (ACS) then intro- recognize each author’s specific contribution. As such, duced their own take on a definition in 1985 as a part of it is not surprising that the history of science includes the society’s Ethical Guidelines to Publication of Chemi- various cases of authors not receiving sufficient credit cal Research. As outlined by the ACS:9 for their contributions, and it was recent research into 5 one such controversial case that has led to the current The co-authors of a paper should be all those persons who discussion. Unfortunately, there exists no firm, uniform have made significant scientific contributions to the work 6 rules for determining authorship and current practices reported and who share responsibility and accountability can vary significantly,7 even to the point that the litera- for the results. Other contributions should be indicated in ture is now plagued with ethically questionable practices a footnote or an “Acknowledgments” section. such as coercive authorship4,7 (senior officials requir- ing authorship on the work of subordinates without any This definition has been retained nearly unchanged contribution), gift/honorary authorship4,6,8 (the addition in each of the society’s revised ethical guidelines since. of authors that did not actually contribute to the work Of the currently available best practices, the Inter- out of respect or friendship), or the opposite case where national Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICM- Substantia. An International Journal of the History of Chemistry 5(1): 5-7, 2021 ISSN 2532-3997 (online) | DOI: 10.36253/Substantia-1183 6 Seth C. Rasmussen JE) included much of the ACS definition, while also scientific publishers.11 As outlined in Table 1, this con- attempting to provide more specific parameters. As sists of 14 various roles for potential contributions to a such, the ICMJE recommended that to merit authorship, given publication, with each author assigned appropri- researchers must meet all of the following conditions:10 ate roles upon submission of the manuscript. While no i) Substantial contributions to the study’s conception/ guidelines are provided in terms of the extent of con- design, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation; ii) tribution expected of each author, this approach does Drafting the manuscript or critical revision for intellec- provide a practical way to