Free Access
Issue
Nat. Sci. Soc.
Volume 19, Number 4, octobre-décembre 2011
Dossier « Le champ des commons en question : perspectives croisées »
Page(s) 432 - 435
Section Libre opinion – Opinion
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2011160
Published online 27 March 2012
  • Anonymous, 1993. Are academic institutions corrupt? The Lancet, 342, 315-316. [Google Scholar]
  • Bennett, D.M.,Taylor, D.M., 2003. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers, Emergency Medicine, 15, 263-270. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Carbone, K.C., 2010. Fundamental change in German research policy, Science, 328, 569. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cronin, B., 2001. Hyperauthorship: A postmodern perversion or evidence of a structural shift in scholarly communication practices? Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 52, 558-569. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Cullington, B.J., 1998. Authorship, data ownership examined, Science, 242, 658. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Epstein, R.J., 1993. Six authors in search of a citation: villains or victims of the Vancouver convention? British Medical Journal, 306, 765-767. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Flanagin, A.,Carey, L.A.,Fontanarosa, P.B.,Phillips, S.G.,Pace, B.P.,Lundberg, G.D.,Rennie, D., 1998. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals, Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 222-224. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Fröhlingsdorf, M., Verbeet, M., 2009. Pilze im Kakao, Der Spiegel, 04/05. [Google Scholar]
  • Gendron, Y., 2008. Constituting the academic performer: The spectre of superficiality and stagnation in academia, European Accounting Review, 17, 97-127. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Greene, M., 2007. The demise of the lone author, Nature, 450, 1165. [Google Scholar]
  • Hochberg, M.E.,Chase, J.M.,Gotelli, N.J.,Hastings, A.,Naeem, S., 2009. The tragedy of the reviewer commons, Ecology Letters, 12, 2-4. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Horton, R., 1998. The unmasked carnival of science, The Lancet, 351, 688-689. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Hudson, J., 1996. Trends in multi-authored papers in economics, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 153-158. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Jacqué, P., 2011. Peut-on évaluer la recherche ? Le Monde, 04/02. [Google Scholar]
  • Khan, K.S.,Nwosu, C.R.,Khan, S.F.,Dwarakanath, L.S.,Chien, P.F.W., 1999. A controlled analysis of authorship trends over two decades, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 181, 503-507. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lawrence, P.A., 2003. The politics of publication, Nature, 422, 259-261, doi:10.1038/422259a. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Lawrence, P.A., 2007. The mismeasurement of science, Current Biology, 17, 583-585, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2007.06.014. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Louis, K.S.,Holdsworth, J.M.,Anderson, M.S.,Campbell, E.G., 2008. Everyday ethics in research: Translating authorship guidelines into practice in the bench sciences, Journal of Higher Education, 79, 88-112. [CrossRef] [MathSciNet] [Google Scholar]
  • Marx, K., 1894. Le Capital, Livres II et III, in Œuvres, Paris, Gallimard, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  • McClain, C., 2011. The mass extinction of scientists who study species, Wired Science, 19/01. [Google Scholar]
  • Mulligan, A., 2004. Is peer review in crisis? Perspectives in Publishing, 2, 1-6. [Google Scholar]
  • Noorden (Van), R., 2010. A profusion of measures, Nature, 465, 864-866. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Osborne, J.W., Holland, A., 2009. What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 14, 1-19. [Google Scholar]
  • Pestre, D., 2003. Science, argent et politique. Un essai d’interprétation, Paris, Inra Éditions. [Google Scholar]
  • Quan, S.F., 2008. Guests and ghosts begone–guest authorship and ghostwriting and the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine, 4, 203. [Google Scholar]
  • Rennie, D.,Flanagin, A.,Yank, V., 2000. The contributions of authors, Journal of the American Medical Association, 284, 89-91. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Rohn, J., 2010. Reward effort, not luck, Nature, 465, 872. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Slone, R.M., 1996. Coauthors’ contributions to major papers published in the AJR: Frequency of undeserved coauthorship, American Journal of Roentgenology, 167, 571-579. [Google Scholar]
  • Statzner, B.,Resh, V., 2010. Negative changes in the scientific publication process in ecology: potential causes and consequences, Freshwater Biology, 55, 2639-2653. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • Tainer, J.A., 1991. Science, citation, and funding, Science, 251, 1408. [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • Tasch, W., 2008. Inquiries into the Nature of Slow Money. Investing as if Food, Farms, and Fertility Mattered, Chelsea, Chelsea Green Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • Weltzin, J.,Belote, R.,Williams, L., 2006. Authorship in ecology: Attribution, accountability, and responsibility, Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 4, 435-441. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  • West, J.D., 2010. Learn from game theory, Nature, 465, 871-872. [Google Scholar]
  • Whitley, R., 2000. The Intellectual and Social Organization of the Sciences, Oxford, Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.