Authorship

1. Authorship 許重義 2013.06.21&26 hsuc@mail.cmu.edu.tw hsuc@mail.cmuh.org.tw

2. 有獎徵答三不朽指的是那三件事?

3. 三不朽即立德、立功、立言

4. 諸位從事研究算是三不朽之立言?立功?立德?

5. 因為不朽所以Papers with Your Name = YOUFor All YOUR Life

6. 船過水無痕您的paper變成永久的記錄

7. 詩經小雅戰戰兢兢如臨深淵 如履薄冰This is Why We Need to Know Authorship Thoroughly

8. Authorship&Academic Conduct

9. -國科會學術倫理-違反學術倫理行為指研究造假、學術論著抄襲，或其他於研究構想、執行或成果呈現階段違反學術規範之行為。

10. Misconduct Cases

11. Forgery

12. 台灣學者發表在Cell的第一篇論文 被舉發有變造實驗數據及圖片嫌疑 察明屬實Cell公告撤文

13. 葛蘭素史克(GSK)中國研發中心總裁臧敬五2010年發表在國際頂尖雜誌《Nature Medicine》論文涉嫌造假當事人已離開該公司，並正在接受調查。GSK官網公布「該論文某些數據確實存在不實之處。」GSK決定根據《Nature Medicine》雜誌的相關流程將要求該論文所有作者簽署一份聯合聲明撤銷這篇論文目前，與論文相關的人員，一人被革職、一人遞交了辭職報告、另外三個人正處於行政離職狀態，等待最終的調查結果。 From: 北京新浪網 (2013-06-13)

14. 2006年- 韓國黃禹錫教授發表在《科學》上的論文成果被認定為造假

15. Science InsiderJune 19, 2013 Last week, a group led by Shoukhrat Mitalipov of the Oregon National Primate Research Center in Beaverton reported in Cell that it had used cloning to make personalized human embryonic stem cells (hESCs).

16. Science InsiderJune 19, 2013 After last week's report, a commenter on PubPeer, a site dedicated to postpublication peer review, alleged several instances of "image reuse" in the Cell paper.

17. Plagiarism

18. 2012年德國前歐洲議會副議長梅林在2000年提交的博士論文中有120多處被定性為剽竊2012年德國前歐洲議會副議長梅林在2000年提交的博士論文中有120多處被定性為剽竊

19. 博士論文抄襲 德國教長下台 自由時報 – 2013年2月11日

21. 論文內容重複抄襲自已

24. Authorship Dispute

25. 基因研究專利 中研院爆爭議 2011-4-10 自由時報 中研院與長庚醫院皮膚科合作，九十二年時發現藥物過敏基因HLA-B*1502與HLA-B*5801，同年中研院將此成果申請專利，再技術權轉移生技公司，推出HLA-B*1502藥害基因篩檢套組商品，去年獲健保給付。 長庚醫院去年發函中研院抗議，主張這是雙方研究成果，中研院不應獨佔。

26. 基因研究專利 中研院爆爭議 2011-4-10 自由時報 長庚皮膚科醫師鐘文宏說，當初他抽取藥物過敏受害者血液時，研究目的是尋找藥物過敏基因，研究成果是病患血淚換來，應開放各界無償使用。 梁啟銘說，鐘文宏當初是到中研院學習，拿中研院的設備、經費做研究，因此主動認為是中研院的智財權，也經鐘醫師簽名後才去申請專利。但梁啟銘也承認：「一開始沒想到長庚其實也有份。」

27. Authorship Guidelines

28. Harvard Medical School 1999.12.17

29. Harvard Medical School • Everyone who is listed as an author should have made a substantial, direct, intellectual contribution to the work.

30. Harvard Medical School For example (in the case of a research report) they should have contributed to the conception, design, analysis and/or interpretation of data. Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable.

31. Harvard Medical School Acquisition of funding and provision of technical services, patients, or materials, while they may be essential to the work, are not in themselves sufficient contributions to justify authorship.

32. Authorship • Everyone who has made substantial intellectual contributions to the work should be an author. Everyone who has made other substantial contributions should be acknowledged.

33. Authorship • When research is done by teams whose members are highly specialized, individuals' contributions and responsibility may be limited to specific aspects of the work.

34. Authorship • All authors should participate in writing the manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the final version.

35. Authorship • One author should take primary responsibility for the work as a whole even if he or she does not have an in-depth understanding of every part of the work.

36. Authorship • This primary authorshould assure that all authors meet basic standards for authorship and should prepare a concise, written description of their contributions to the work, which has been approved by all authors. This record should remain with the sponsoring department.

37. Authorship Order • Many different ways of determining order of authorship exist across disciplines, research groups, and countries.

38. Examples of authorship policies descending order of contribution, placing the person who took the lead in writing the manuscript or doing the research first and the most experienced contributor last, and alphabetical or random order. While the significance of a particular order may be understood in a given setting, order of authorship has no generally agreed upon meaning.

39. Authorship Order • It is not possible to interpret from order of authorship the respective contributions of individual authors. • Promotion committees, granting agencies, readers, and others who seek to understand how individual authors have contributed to the work should not read into order of authorship their own meaning, which may not be shared by the authors themselves.

40. Authorship Order • The authors should decide the order of authorship together.

41. Authorship Order • Authors should specify in their manuscript a description of the contributions of each author and how they have assigned the order in which they are listed so that readers can interpret their roles correctly.

42. Authorship Order • The primary author should prepare a concise, written description of how order of authorship was decided.

43. Implementation • Research teams should discuss authorship issues frankly early in the course of their work together.

44. Implementation • Disputes over authorship are best settled at the local level by the authors themselves or the laboratory chief. If local efforts fail, the Faculty of Medicine can assist in resolving grievances through its Ombuds Office.

45. Implementation • Laboratories, departments, educational programs, and other organizations sponsoring scholarly work should post, and also include in their procedure manuals, both this statement and a description of their own customary ways of deciding who should be an author and the order in which they are listed. They should include authorship policies in their orientation of new members.

46. Implementation • Authorship should be a component of the research ethics course that is required for all research fellows at Harvard Medical School.

47. Implementation • These policies should be reviewed periodically because both scientific investigation and authorship practices are changing.

48. With best wishes for every paper you publish stands the challenge of exhausted scrutiny and continues to be valid forever