1 year ago most of the bloggers were all behind Google authorship which was ultimately shut down by Google and now Facebook have come up with an amazing “Authorship” feature which is very much similar to what Google had a year ago.For those who are still confused about this term authorship, well it can simply be ” the source (as the author) of a piece of writing, music, or art”.
Introduction About Authorship:
Academic authorship of journal articles, books, and other original works is a means by which academics communicate the results of their scholarly work, establish priority for their discoveries, and build their reputation among their peers.Authorship is a primary basis that employers use to evaluate academic personnel for employment, promotion, and tenure. In academic publishing, authorship of a work is claimed by those making intellectual contributions to the completion of the research described in the work. In simple cases, a solitary scholar carries out a research project and writes the subsequent article or book. In many disciplines, however, collaboration is the norm and issues of authorship can be controversial. In these contexts, authorship can encompass activities other than writing the article; a researcher who comes up with an experimental design and analyzes the data may be considered an author, even if she or he had little role in composing the text describing the results. According to some standards, even writing the entire article would not constitute authorship unless the writer was also involved in at least one other phase of the project.
Guidelines for assigning authorship vary between institutions and disciplines. They may be formally defined or simply cultural custom. Incorrect application of authorship rules occasionally leads to charges of academic misconduct and sanctions for the violator. A 2002 survey of a large sample of researchers who had received funding from the U.S. National Institutes of Health revealed that 10% of respondents claimed to have inappropriately assigned authorship credit within the last three years. This was the first large scale survey concerning such issues. In other fields only limited or no empirical data is available.The natural sciences have no universal standard for authorship, but some major multi-disciplinary journals and institutions have established guidelines for work that they publish. The journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America has an editorial policy that specifies “authorship should be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work” and furthermore, “authors are strongly encouraged to indicate their specific contributions” as a footnote.
The American Chemical Society further specifies that authors are those who also “share responsibility and accountability for the results” and the U.S. National Academies specify “an author who is willing to take credit for a paper must also bear responsibility for its contents. Thus, unless a footnote or the text of the paper explicitly assigns responsibility for different parts of the paper to different authors, the authors whose names appear on a paper must share responsibility for all of it.The American Psychological Association has similar guidelines as medicine for authorship. The APA acknowledge that authorship is not limited to the writing of manuscripts, but must include those who have made substantial contributions to a study such as “formulating the problem or hypothesis, structuring the experimental design, organizing and conducting the statistical analysis, interpreting the results, or writing a major portion of the paper”. While the APA guidelines list many other forms of contributions to a study that do not constitute authorship, it does state that combinations of these and other tasks may justify authorship. Like medicine, the APA considers institutional position, such as Department Chair, insufficient for attributing authorship.
From the late 17th century to the 1920s, sole authorship was the norm, and the one-paper-one-author model worked well for distributing credit. Today, shared authorship is common in most academic disciplines, with the exception of the humanities, where sole authorship is still the predominant model. In particular types of research, including particle physics, genome sequencing and clinical trials, a paper’s author list can run into the hundreds. In 1998, the Collider Detector at Fermilab adopted a highly unorthodox policy for assigning authorship. CDF maintains a standard author list. All scientists and engineers working at CDF are added to the standard author list after one year of full-time work; names stay on the list until one year after the worker leaves CDF. Every publication coming out of CDF uses the entire standard author list, in alphabetical order. Other big collaborations, including most particle physics experiments, followed this model. In large, multi-center clinical trials authorship is often used as a reward for recruiting patients.
A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1993 reported on a clinical trial conducted in 1,081 hospitals in 15 different countries, involving a total of 41,021 patients. There were 972 authors listed in an appendix and authorship was assigned to a group. In 2015, an article in high-energy physics was published describing the measurement of the mass of the Higgs boson based on collisions in the Large Hadron Collider; the article boasted 5,154 authors, the printed author list needed 24 pages.Large authors lists have attracted some criticism. They strain guidelines that insist that each author’s role be described and that each author is responsible for the validity of the whole work. Such a system treats authorship more as credit for scientific service at the facility in general rather that as an identification of specific contributions. One commentator wrote, “In more than 25 years working as a scientific editor.I have not been aware of any valid argument for more than three authors per paper, although I recognize that this may not be true for every field.” The rise of shared authorship has been attributed to Big Science scientific experiments that require collaboration and specialization of many individuals.
Alternatively, the increase in multi-authorship might be a consequence of the way scientists are evaluated. Traditionally, scientists were judged by the number of papers they published, and later by the impact of those papers. The former is an estimate of quantity and the latter of quality. Both methods were adequate when single authorship was the norm, but vastly inflate individual contribution when papers are multi-authored. When each author claims each paper and each citation as his/her own, papers and citations are magically multiplied by the number of authors. Furthermore, there is no cost to giving authorship to individuals who made only minor contribution and there is an incentive to do so. Hence, the system rewards heavily multi-authored papers. This problem is openly acknowledged, and it could easily be “corrected” by dividing each paper and its citations by the number of authors.
Finally, the rise in shared authorship may also reflect increased acknowledgment of the contributions of lower level workers, including graduate students and technicians, as well as honorary authorship, while allowing for such collaborations to make an independent statement about the quality and integrity of a scientific work.Honorary authorship is sometimes granted to those who played no significant role in the work, for a variety of reasons. Until recently, it was standard to list the head of a German department or institution as an author on a paper regardless of input.The United States National Academy of Sciences, however, warns that such practices “dilute the credit due the people who actually did the work, inflate the credentials of those so ‘honored,’ and make the proper attribution of credit more difficult.” The extent to which honorary authorship still occurs is not empirically known. However, it is plausible to expect that it is still widespread, because senior scientists leading large research groups can receive much of their reputation from a long publication list and thus have little motivation to give up honorary authorships.
A possible measure against honorary authorships has been implemented by some scientific journals, in particular by the Nature journals. They demand that each new manuscript must include a statement of responsibility that specifies the contribution of every author. The level of detail varies between the disciplines. Senior persons may still make some vague claim to have “supervised the project”, for example, even if they were only in the formal position of a supervisor without having delivered concrete contributions.However, the need to describe contributions can at least be expected to somewhat reduce honorary authorships. In addition, it may help to identify the perpetrator in a case of scientific fraud.Ghost authorship occurs when an individual makes a substantial contribution to the research or the writing of the report, but is not listed as an author. Researchers, statisticians and writers become ghost authors when they meet authorship criteria but are not named as an author. Writers who work in this capacity are called ghostwriters.
Ghost authorship has been linked to partnerships between industry and higher education. Two-thirds of industry-initiated randomized trials may have evidence of ghost authorship.Ghost authorship is considered problematic because it may be used to obscure the participation of researchers with conflicts of interest.Litigation against the pharmaceutical company, Merck over health concerns related to use of their drug, Rofecoxib, revealed examples of ghost authorship. Merck routinely paid medical writing companies to prepare journal manuscripts, and subsequently recruited external, academically affiliated researchers to pose as the authors.Authors are sometimes included in a list without their permission. Even if this is done with the benign intention to acknowledge some contributions, it is problematic since authors carry responsibility for correctness and thus need to have the opportunity to check the manuscript and possibly demand changes.
What is Facebook Authorship ?
The Facebook Authorship feature works with a simple author meta tag and once it is setup, it will display the page or profile link of the blogger, publisher or the writer whose content is being shared. Take a look below to understand what basically it is, earlier it was just the name being displayed..Quite an impressive feature right ?? You can either setup your profile page or you can also link your brand page. Both the options are made available by facebook.
Journalists use Facebook to share news as it happens and provide analysis to deepen the reader’s connection with their work. By implementing the Author Tag on their websites, publishers can make it easy for Facebook readers to start following the author of an article they just read and enjoyed. This is a web development tool that connects the byline in a story preview in the News Feed to the writer’s Page or Profile with Follow.People use Facebook every day to discover what’s going on in the world. The Author Tag helps connect those people to the stories and journalists that best inform and entertain them.
Benefits of Facebook Authorship
The benefits of this feature will be directly to all the bloggers and content publishers.Bloggers always wants to get their name listed, featured and known, and with this feature, Facebook is directly helping doing “Personal Branding” for them. This is something what I and most of you needed.This can increase your followers, page likes, your reach and in all it will help you promote yourself in a better way without even sharing the content.You will understand this as soon as you enable this feature and start experiencing.