Micro-credits in scientific publishing

– New technologies allow for efficient dissemination of scientific knowledge objects (SKOs). Yet they are likely to transform SKOs as well. The aim of this paper is to propose a way to structure SKOs that allows for both a clear individuation of the main scientific contributions and a fine‐grained structure of credits and evaluation., – The authors review and analyze existing practices of structuring SKOs in different disciplines., – Provisionally considering the published paper as an atomic SKO, possible subatomic structures of SKOs are investigated. It is hypothesized that SKOs are meant to satisfy two separated but interdependent sets of constraints, one related to the contribution the SKO makes to the body of knowledge, and another related to the contribution the SKO makes to the reputation of its authors. It is hypothesized that existing SKO structures are not optimal for satisfying both sets of constraints at once., – A broader analysis may be needed that covers the totality of existing practices., – Guidelines are offered. This paper, including the present abstract, is an example of what the scientific paper of tomorrow could be like., – The paper proposes better apportioning of scientific credits and evaluation; substantive evolution of the academic publishing and credit attribution models., – The idea that the communication and evaluation function of a SKO are differently reflected in their structure is novel. The proposed fine‐grained credit attribution system is novel. The molecular/atomic/sub‐atomic distinction is a new way to fix the terminology.

[1]  Cristina García Testal,et al.  Digital object identifier , 2001 .

[2]  A. Goldman Knowledge in a Social World , 1999 .

[3]  Daniel C. Dennett,et al.  Higher-order truths about chmess , 2006 .

[4]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  Who gets acknowledged: Measuring scientific contributions through automatic acknowledgment indexing , 2004, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[5]  Stanley Rice,et al.  On publishing , 1980, SIGOA.

[6]  Emilie Marcus 2010: A Publishing Odyssey , 2010, Cell.

[7]  D. Rennie,et al.  Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. , 1998, JAMA.

[8]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Acknowledgement trends in the research literature of information science , 2001, J. Documentation.

[9]  J. E. Hirsch,et al.  An index to quantify an individual's scientific research output , 2005, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA.

[10]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  The citation process: The role and significance of citations in scientific communication , 1984 .

[11]  E. B. Duncan,et al.  Qualified Citation Indexing: Its Relevance to Educational Technology. , 1981 .

[12]  Veronica Yank,et al.  Disclosure of Researcher Contributions: A Study of Original Research Articles in The Lancet , 1999 .

[13]  R. Dellavalle,et al.  The write position , 2007, EMBO reports.

[14]  B. Cronin,et al.  Trading cultures: Resource mobilization and service rendering in the life sciences as revealed in the journal article's paratext , 2006 .

[15]  Michael H. Goldhaber,et al.  The Attention Economy and the Net , 1997, First Monday.

[16]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  How are new citation-based journal indicators adding to the bibliometric toolbox? , 2009, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Joost Kircz,et al.  Modularity: the next form of scientific information presentation? , 1998, J. Documentation.

[18]  J. Aizenman,et al.  The life cycle of scholars and papers in economics – the ‘citation death tax’ , 2008 .

[19]  Steffen Lohmann,et al.  Comparison of Tag Cloud Layouts: Task-Related Performance and Visual Exploration , 2009, INTERACT.

[20]  Charles H. Davis,et al.  Acknowledgments and Intellectual Indebtedness: A Bibliometric Conjecture , 1993, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[21]  Matthias Egger,et al.  Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[22]  H. W. Winger : The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man , 1963 .

[23]  Francis Zwiers,et al.  Climate change: Attributing cause and effect , 2008, Nature.

[24]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[25]  A. Overbeke,et al.  What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). , 1998, JAMA.

[26]  D. Rennie,et al.  Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. , 1994, JAMA.

[27]  Charles H. Davis,et al.  Acknowledgments and Intellectual Indebtedness: A Bibliometric Conjecture , 1993, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[28]  N. Laird,et al.  Meta-analysis in clinical trials. , 1986, Controlled clinical trials.

[29]  D. Gentili,et al.  Web 2.0 and scientific research. , 2010 .

[30]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Let the credits Roll: a Preliminary Examination of the Role played by Mentors and Trusted Assessors in disciplinary Formation , 1991, J. Documentation.

[31]  Blaise Cronin,et al.  Who dunnit? Metatags and hyperauthorship , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[32]  E. Garfield The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. , 2006, JAMA.

[33]  Eileen A. Hogan The Attention Economy: Understanding the New Currency of Business , 2001 .

[34]  G D Lundberg,et al.  The order of authorship: who's on first? , 1990, JAMA.

[35]  D. Rennie,et al.  When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. , 1997, JAMA.

[36]  T. A. Elasy "Negative" Results: An Editor's Dilemma , 2009 .