Autoria científica: por que tanta polêmica?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7769/gesec.v7i2.597Palavras-chave:
Autoria, Publicação científica, Ciência Empírica, Pesquisa CientíficaResumo
Os critérios para autoria científica ainda carecem de consenso entre cientistas, dando margem a especulações que, algumas vezes, apenas justificam o injustificável. Neste texto, meu foco é na ciência empírica e eu proponho que participações em coleta de dados (CD) ou fornecimento de recursos materiais (RM) para a pesquisa não são condições suficientes, nem necessárias, para se atribuir autoria em textos científicos. Após apresentar as bases teóricas dessa proposta, mostro dados que indicam que essas bases têm sido usadas em magnitude ampla na ciência internacional, o que torna o debate ainda mais relevante. Ao final proponho separar as participações na pesquisa científica em autoria, colaboração e agradecimento, de forma a valorizar cada grupo de atuação, sem perder suas peculiaridades. São elas: autoria, colaboração e agradecimento.
Scientific authorship: why so much controversy?
Criteria for scientific authorship still lack of universal consensus among scientists, thus rising speculations that, sometimes, only justify the unjustifiable. In this text, my focus is the empirical science and I propose that participation in data collection (DC) or provision of material resources (MR) for the research are neither sufficient, nor necessary, conditions to warrant authorship in scientific texts. After presenting the main theoretical bases of my argument, I show some data supporting that such participations (DC and/or MR) have been largely used for assignment of scientific authorship in the international literature, thus making this debate more relevant. Finally, I propose separate the participation in a scientific study in three classes: authorship, collaboration and acknowledgements, thus valorizing each of these participations, but not contradicting its peculiarities in the process of building scientific knowledge.
keywords: Authorship; Scientific Publication; Scientific Knowledge.
Downloads
Referências
Aad, G. et al. (ATLAS Collaboration, CMS Colaboration). (2015). Combined measurement of the Higgs boson mass in pp collisions at √s = 7 and 8 TeV with the ATLAS and CMS Experiments. Physical Reviews Letters, vol. 114: nº 191803. http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803 (acessado em 21/08/2016).
Maddox, J. (1994). Making publication more respectable. Nature, vol. 369, pp. 353. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/369353a0
O’Luanaigh, C. (2013). New results indicate that new particle is a Higgs boson. CERN - http://home.cern/about/updates/2013/03/new-results-indicate-new-particle-higgs-boson (acessado em 21/08/2016).
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
• 1. The author(s) authorize the publication of the article in the journal.
• 2. The author(s) ensure that the contribution is original and unpublished and is not being evaluated in other journal(s).
• 3. The journal is not responsible for the opinions, ideas and concepts expressed in the texts because they are the sole responsibility of the author(s).
• 4. The publishers reserve the right to make adjustments and textual adaptation to the norms of APA.
• 5. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
• 6. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access) at http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html