What’s the Point of Authors?
Saved in:
| Title: | What’s the Point of Authors? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Andersen, LE, Bailey, R, Bhatia, U, Burch-Brown, J, Bright, LK, Brooke, J, Cameron, P, Campbell-Moore, C, Cornelli, J, Crowley, S, Dang, H, Fraser, R, Falconer, I, Ferner, A, Gamez, M, Gerken, M, Hawley, K, Heyman, M, Kappel, K, Landes, E, Landemore, H, Loewe, B, Lunt, D, Martin, U, Meyns, C, Millard, L, Mitchell, D, Okasha, S, Peet, A, Pettigrew, R, de Ridder, J, Ross, R, Saint-Germier, P, Simion, M, Skatova, A, Tanswell, F, Whiting, D, Wilson, A, Brad Wray, K, Yeşilova, D, Habgood-Coote, J |
| Contributors: | University of St Andrews.Pure Mathematics, University of St Andrews.School of Mathematics and Statistics |
| Source: | The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. 75:487-517 |
| Publisher Information: | University of Chicago Press, 2024. |
| Publication Year: | 2024 |
| Subject Terms: | MCC, 0301 basic medicine, 03 medical and health sciences, T-NDAS, 06 humanities and the arts, 0603 philosophy, ethics and religion |
| Description: | In this paper, I want to start to untangle some of the philosophical issues associated with our practices of ascribing authorship for collaborative work, with an eye to formulating better guidelines for authorship. I will focus on the following questions: 1. What epistemic, social, and ethical functions are played by our practices of ascribing authorship for academic papers? 2. What ways of ascribing authorship would best address these functions? Can any one way of ascribing authorship address all of the functions? I hope to make three contributions. First, I hope to build on established debates about authorship to offer a general framework for assessing practices of assigning authorship. Secondly, to argue that the different functions of authorship are incoherent, making different predictions about who should be an author. Thirdly, I will argue that this incoherence points in the direction of replacing the role of an author with a number of different roles which address the different functions. In the final section I will set out a proposal that does just this, which I will call the no author account of authorship. |
| Document Type: | Article |
| File Description: | application/pdf |
| Language: | English |
| ISSN: | 1464-3537 0007-0882 |
| DOI: | 10.1086/715539 |
| Access URL: | https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/715539 http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19051/ https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/175704/ https://hdl.handle.net/10023/32105 |
| Accession Number: | edsair.doi.dedup.....30dfb0df91094557a3c9c3b3aa9ffa0a |
| Database: | OpenAIRE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstract: | In this paper, I want to start to untangle some of the philosophical issues associated with our practices of ascribing authorship for collaborative work, with an eye to formulating better guidelines for authorship. I will focus on the following questions: 1. What epistemic, social, and ethical functions are played by our practices of ascribing authorship for academic papers? 2. What ways of ascribing authorship would best address these functions? Can any one way of ascribing authorship address all of the functions? I hope to make three contributions. First, I hope to build on established debates about authorship to offer a general framework for assessing practices of assigning authorship. Secondly, to argue that the different functions of authorship are incoherent, making different predictions about who should be an author. Thirdly, I will argue that this incoherence points in the direction of replacing the role of an author with a number of different roles which address the different functions. In the final section I will set out a proposal that does just this, which I will call the no author account of authorship. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 14643537 00070882 |
| DOI: | 10.1086/715539 |