Professors Against Plagiarism

استادان علیه تقلب

مبارزه با تخلف و تقلب علمی در دانشگاه‌ها

این بلاگ به همت تعدادی از استادان دانشگاه‌های کشور ایجاد شده و هدف آن مبارزه با تخلف یا تقلب علمی در دانشگاه است

مقدمه

به‌نام خداوند هستی و هم راستی

این بلاگ به همت تعدادی از استادان دانشگاه‌های کشور ایجاد شده است و هدف آن مبارزه با تخلف و تقلب علمی در دانشگاه‌ها چه از سوی دانش‌جویان و چه از سوی اعضای هیات علمی است. متاسفانه ما شاهد گسترش حرکت‌های غیر اخلاقی در فضای علمی کشور هستیم که با انگیزه‌هایی چون اخذ مدرک، پذیرش یا ارتقای مرتبه‌ی دانشگاهی صورت می‌گیرتد.

ما با هرگونه تقلب مخالفیم و سکوت در برابر آن‌را هم جایز نمی‌دانیم. در این بلاگ قصد داریم برخی موارد و روش‌های تقلب‌ را بیان و ضمن آموزش به دانش‌جویان و تلاش برای اشاعه‌ی اخلاق و آداب حرفه‌ای در جمع خودمان‌، مسولان را وادار کنیم تا به مشکل تقلب و ریشه‌های آن واکنش جدی نشان دهند.

۲۱ مرداد ۱۳۸۷

استادان موسس (الفبا)

استادان یا پژوهشگران حامی

حمایت

اگر می‌خواهید نامتان به‌عنوان یکی از حامیان ذکر شود، نام کامل و آدرس وبگاه خود را به آدرس ghodsi_AT_sharif_DOT_edu ارسال نمایید و در صورت تغییر گروه حامی ما را مطلع کنید..

تعداد زیادی آدرس بلاگ خود را فرستاده‌اند که متاسفانه امکان استفاده از آن به‌جای وبگاه نیست.

فهرست برخی از مجلات کم اعتبار

پیوندهای مفید

بایگانی مطالب

آخرین مطالب

پربیننده ترین مطالب

محبوب ترین مطالب

مطالب پربحث‌تر

آخرین نظرات

How the names of authors must appear in a paper?

M.A. Jalali | جمعه, ۱۵ شهریور ۱۳۸۷
First of all, I apologize for writing in English, because my Linux machine has not Persian fonts yet.

I sometimes hear from my students that their teachers/professors/supervisors force them to put the student's name at the bottom of the list of authors of a paper, which has been prepared mainly by the student. This is an illegal and unethical action:

1. The author/co-author of a paper is a person who has significant contributions to the paper. Proposing the main idea of a research does not imply that the name of the proposer (whoever s/he may be) must appear as an author. Such a person must be acknowledged in the closing section of the paper.

2. If a student has done all calculations of a paper, and s/he has written the text, and if the text has gone little revision/editorial work, s/he can publish his/her results alone (single author).

3. A professor's name should appear in a paper only if s/he has done some parts of the calculations/research-work and has written the part of the paper that is related to her/his own contribution.

4. Some journals sort the names of authors alphabetically. Otherwise, the least a person has contributed to a paper, the lowest place his/her name appears in the list. A supervisor has no right to put his name as the first author unless s/he has done the major part of that work (calculations+simulations+writing).

5. Providing the research grant (even if this is done by the supervisor) should only be acknowledged at the end of the paper: bringing a grant does not imply authorship.

6. Putting the name of an honorary author is not ethical. This is unfortunately a common behavior in our university so that a professor puts the name of an administrator in his paper just to honor him. This is unethical and has angered our students.

Please be careful that our actions are judged by students. They are neither slaves nor our work-force. They are the next generation of a society that we all live in. They behave as they are trained. So, put them on a track.

Note: The comments posted by readers include more useful criteria.
موافقین ۰ مخالفین ۰ ۸۷/۰۶/۱۵
M.A. Jalali

نظرات (۱۵)

۲۰ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۹:۵۶ Arash Salarian
تا جایی که می‌دانم در رشته‌های مختلف قرداد‌های (اکثرا نانوشته) مختلفی در مورد ترتیب اسامی نویسندگان مقالات وجود دارد. در خیلی از رشته‌های علمی و نه مهندسی، تعداد نویسندگان زیاد است چرا که کار دامنه بزرگی دارد و حاصل تلاش تیمی و به مدت چند سال است. در این موارد معمولا نویسنده اول کسی است متن مقاله را نوشته و معمولا هم کسی نیست جز دانشجوی دکترایی که اکثر کار را هم انجام داده. اسم آخر هم معمولا رهبر تیم و رئیس گروه است. بقیه افراد به ترتیب سهم‌شان در کار در ردیف‌های دوم تا یکی مانده به آخر قرار می‌گیرند. چرا اسم آخر مهم است؟ چون نویسنده اول که احتمالا دانشجوی دکترا بوده، چند سال بعد ممکن است در زمینه کاملا متفاوتی مشغول شود و یا حتی از دنیای آکادمیک خداحافظی کند. در مقابل رهبر گروه معمولا استاد تمامی است که این مقاله منطبق بر مسیر کلی تحقیقی اوست و بهترین کسی است که سالهای بعد از انتشار می‌توان به او رجوع کرد یا دنبال مقالات منتشره با نام او بود تا آخرین تحقیقات گروه را بدست آورد.
۱۹ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۱۵:۱۳ M.A. Jalali
محمد عزیز: روابط بین استاد و دانشجو از نوع روابط همیاری و همزیستی است و اگر دانشجویی ایرادهای استاد را منعکس نمی کند یعنی تا حدودی به شرایطی که با او دارد راضی است (یعنی دارد مثل استادش می شود یا قبلا از همان نوع بوده). اگر دانشجو نخواهد با استادی کار کند حتما با تعویض استاد وی موافقت می شود. بزودی بحث مربوط به چاپ مقالات را در شورای دانشکده مطرح خواهیم کرد.
۱۹ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۹:۰۸ Mohammad
جناب آقای دکتر جلالی
مطالب ذیل احتراماً به استحضار می رسد

1.
خود بهتر از بنده واقفید که تعداد اساتیدی که به سو استفاده از دانشجویان می پردازند بیشتر از اساتید راهنمای ملزم به اخلاقیات می باشد بابراین تمامی دانشجویان چنین شانسی ندارند علاوه بر آن معمولاً دانشجویان براحتی نمی توانند متوجه موضوع باشند زیرا دانشجویان اساتید متقلب عموماً در مورد اساتید خود اظهارنظری نمی نمایند

2.
در خصوص ترتیب اسامی در مقالات
من در خاطرم هست که برخی اساتید که در انجام پژوهش هیچ نقشی نداشته اند
یعنی چه در انتخاب موضوع
چه در انجام محاسبات
و چه در نوشتن مقاله
از دانشجو می خواستند که نام آنها بعنوان نویسنده اول ثبت شود
شاید منظور مرا متوجه شده باشید
بهر صورت مگر بجز شما و دو سه نفر دیگر از اساتید
چندین نفر از اساتید سهم کافی از انجام پژوهش را بر عهده می گیرند که از دانشجو انتظار دارند مولف اول باشند

3.
من در خاطر دارم که در سالهای گذشته اساتید از دانشجویان حل تمرین می خواستند که بجای آن در سر کلاس درس تدریس کرده و خود به بهانه های مختلف از شرکت در سر کلاس شانه خالی می کردند
حتی مشخص بود که اساتید خود در طرح سئوالات نیز نقشی نداشته اند
حال سئوال من این است که استاد با حقوق چند میلیونی با چه بهانه ای باید وظایف آموزشی خود را به دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی خود محول کند

موارد بسیاری از اینگونه اهمالها در دانشکده در خاطر بنده هست
سئوال بنده این است که آیا شما بعنوان یک استاد وظیفه شناس از این موارد مطلعید و در مورد آنها سکوت می کنید و یا اساساً برخی ملاحظات همکاری را در نظر می گیرید
تا آنجایی که من اطلاع دارم موارد فوق هنوز هم در دانشکده در جریان است
خصوصاً مورد دوم

بهر صورت از توجه شما کمال امتنان را دارم
۱۹ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۶:۰۸ محمد قدسی
آقای محمد: اگر اشتباها نظر شما حذف شده است ببخشید. در آن صورت لطفا مجددا ارسال نمایید.
۱۹ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۴:۲۰ BF
Dear m.a.jalali,

Thank you very much for your kind words.

As for the school of John Bardeen being a distinguished one, you are absolutely right (I should point out however that Bardeen always worked in very small groups – he was, as it were, not an Empire builder). However, I genuinely believe that each of us has in principle the potentiality to build a distinguished school around him/her. We may not succeed in achieving this ideal objective (at least not fully), but that would be in spite our best efforts and not because of our neglects; as the English poet Alfred Tennyson aptly said: “It’s better to have loved and lost than to have never loved at all”.

In fact, the story of the Bardeen-Cooper-Schrieffer (BCS) theory is a very instructive one in many respects. For instance, if one considers that the transition temperature of the conventional superconductors is of the order of 10 K, which corresponds to a binding energy of the order of 0.001 eV (one-thousandth of an electron-volt, to be compared with the Coulomb repulsion energy of two neighbouring electrons which is of the order of 10 eV), one can just feel that any effort to describe the phenomenon of superconductivity in terms of the field-theoretical methods that rely on perturbation series expansion should be a priori doomed to fail [Note 1]; if my memory is not erring, the celebrated Richard Feynman was the person who first raised this issue [Note 2]. This being the case, Robert Schrieffer, who at the time was doing his PhD studies on the subject matter of superconductivity with John Bardeen, was so deeply worried about his prospects of ever having enough material for a PhD thesis, that in secret he began to work on a problem related to magnetism. He kept this activity secret from John Bardeen until the latter was leaving for a long-term visit to Canada; Schrieffer disclosed his secret to Bardeen as the latter was boarding his plane! This clearly shows that the worries that most of us have are not specific to us alone; even in the most prominent schools, people often struggle with doubts and fears of failure (the then future Nobel Laureate Kenneth Wilson who at a time had not published for five consecutive years, and no one had any idea of what he was doing in his office, was just saved from dismissal by Hans Bethe who considered him a bright young physicist doing good work).

Now, the remarkable point of the above story is that it was Robert Schrieffer who thought of the BCS many-body wavefunction [Note 3]. The story is that Schrieffer on his way to the university campus thought of this wavefunction. He was so excited by this thought that on his way to campus he made a phone call to John Bardeen in his university office and told him about the wavefunction. According to Schrieffer, by the time he arrived at the office of Bardeen, the latter had already calculated all the thermodynamic properties of the conventional superconductors on the basis of the wavefunction communicated to him on the phone by Schrieffer an hour or so earlier.

I may summarise the above details by saying that progress in science (whether basic or applied) relies on what one might call “big” pictures. In the absence of such a “big” picture, one is likely to behave like a particle undergoing Browning motion, aimlessly jumping from one topic to the next, moving from writing one shallow paper to another more shallow paper, etc. Schools that are not driven by “big” pictures are very unlikely to produce outstanding scientists for the future (one should realise that producing outstanding science is only partly an outcome of intellectual activity, it is also partly, and crucially so, a cultural phenomenon; possessing a first-class intellect is no guarantee for producing first-class science - one must possess the appropriate cultural attitude in regard to science and what constitutes good science, whether basic or applied). We can look back at such illustrious examples like Arnold Sommerfeld, who produced the school that essentially built Quantum Mechanics, at Ernest Rutherford, who himself together with his school discovered the various constituents of an atom (proton by himself, electron by J.J. Thompson, and neutron by James Chadwick), at Lev Landau, whose school greatly contributed to almost all areas of physics, not neglecting that the books that he wrote together with Evgeny Lifshitz, which were later updated and revised by his younger students, left the world an intellectual legacy of inestimable value ("Course of Theoretical Physics" by Landau and Lifshitz is published in ten volumes), etc.

As for “hot” topics. In my opinion jumping on the bandwagon is always wrong, not only technically, but, more importantly, morally. I have seen it happen with the so-called Cold Fusion, which later turned out to be a scientific fraud, with the high-temperature superconductivity, the underlying theory of which remains elusive to this day, and with the various allegedly “observed” physical phenomena (by Jan Hendrik Schön of the Lucent-Bell Laboratories) on a piece of plastic (actually, pentacene). As senior scientists, and above all, as teachers, we must set good moral examples for our students, and jumping on bandwagons just for the sake of attracting funds, is certainly not a good moral example to set. In each of the last-mentioned areas of research, there have been some researchers who have genuinely had very good reasons to concentrate on these new developments. However, a large number of those who switched over to these new fields did so solely for the sake of the availability of funds and/or easy gains (in young and developing fields, even bad papers get heavily cited); by doing so, not only did they set bad moral and intellectual examples for their students, but they seriously harmed the integrity of science. One should consider the intellectual burden caused by reading (not to mention writing) countless nonsensical papers that necessarily get published in the areas crowded by these individuals.

As a matter of fact, I am personally seriously opposed to the way in which research is being funded the world over (at least in all countries of whose research-funding policies I know some details), with the possible honourable exception of France; in my opinion, France produces some of the best and most knowledgeable young scientists, this largely because young scientists in France do not suffer from job insecurity – the salaries of these scientists may not be very high in comparison with those in other European countries, but young scientists in France do not need to fear joblessness because of not having published for some period of time.


BF.

[Note 1] Remarkably, in the conventional electron-phonon coupling problem a theorem due to the Russian physicist A.B. Migdal comes to one’s rescue (not always, I should add for accuracy). It should be realised however that the BCS paper and that by Migdal, containing the Migdal theorem, were both published in the same year, namely in 1957.

[Note 2] Remarkably, Feyman’s later work on superfluid Helium is a crown jewel of his many outstanding works.

[Note 3] An alternative approach by the Russian physicist Nikolai Boguliobov bypasses use of this many-body wavefunction, similar to the theory due to Eliashberg whose derivation relies on the validity of the Migdal theorem. For completeness, the idea behind the BCS wavefunction is not entirely novel; already in 1955 Robert Jastrow had introduced a similar wavefunction in variational calculations. It is however relevant to realise that the BCS wavefunction is not merely a good variational wavefunction, but that it correspond to a superconducting state. BF.
۱۸ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۲۰:۳۴ Mohammad
من امیدوار بودم پاسخ بنده به سئوال آقای دکتر جلالی منتشر شود
ظاهراً با وجود اینکه هیچگونه توهین یا نامی از اشخاص در آن برده نشده است تایید نگشته است
امیدوارم در صورت عدم نشر حداقل آنرا به آقای دکتر جلالی ارجاع کنید تا به صورت خصوصی پاسخ ایشان را دریافت کنم
با سپاس
۱۸ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۲۰:۱۷ M.A. Jalali
Dear BF:

I am very pleased of reading your comments. What I brought up in my post intended to initiate a discussion (like yours) that is usually ignored in our academia. Your Note 1 is very instructive. However, it applies to a distinguished scientific school. A counterexample is when a field becomes "hot" and a faculty member needs to change his/her field of research just to absorb available grants. In such a circumstance, students and post-docs pursue the main study and the principal investigator just tries to finance them. This is very common in engineering schools if not in basic sciences.
۱۸ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۱۲:۱۸ M.A. Jalali
Dear Mohammad:

I try not to bring names up on this website. This may backfire and become counter-productive. Let us teach "ourselves" about scientific ethics. Now, please answer this question: if students do not take their projects with some faculties who "may" mis-use them, we will have a better university. Students can make a right decision to prevent any future misconducts.
۱۸ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۸:۳۵ BF
The following general remarks might prove useful.

Firstly, although I agree with most of the suggested criteria for becoming a co-author of a paper, my experiences over the years have taught me some subtleties that are not reflected in your proposed criteria. Foremost amongst these is the fact that although abusive teachers and professors are abound, in many instances the emotional tension that exists between a student and her/his teacher may give rise to accusations on the part of the former that a close examination would prove to be utterly baseless. This emotional tension is reminiscent of that which exists between the adolescent children and their parents.

Suppose, as an example, that a professor, on the basis of his/her many years of intensive studies in a particular scientific area, has arrived at the conclusion that investigating the properties of a specific mathematical equation is of direct relevance to the understanding of the principles that underlie a specific physical phenomenon [see Note1 below]. He/She consequently tasks a student to carry out this investigation. Suppose now that in the course of carrying out this investigation, the student discovers some remarkable results, exactly as his/her professor had suspected. The question arises as to whether this student should be the sole author of the paper to be written on these results, or should his/her scientific advisor co-author this paper. In answering this question, one should realise that, firstly, there are countless number of mathematical equations to be investigated; secondly, not all of these equations are relevant; and, thirdly, even amongst the relevant equations, hardly any might have contained any remarkable results to be discovered.

The mere fact that the above-mentioned student has been tasked to investigate the particular equation that he/she has subsequently investigated, it of utmost relevance, a fact that oftentimes may not be appreciated by a young and aspiring student who suddenly has come to see his/her teacher as a rival, intent on “appropriating” his/her discoveries. In my experience, in many instances (but not all) this very inability to seeing things in the appropriate context leads to many a student libelling his/her supervisor, labelling him/her as “dishonest”, “abusive”, “lazy”, “illiterate”, etc. One witnesses the same phenomenon of unjustly accusing senior members of a research group as “dishonest”, etc., even amongst postdoctoral researchers.

From the above observations it follows that the proposed criterion, namely

"calculation+simulation+writing"

is too narrow a specification for qualifying a person as a co-author of a paper. Major scientific discoveries are not done solely on account of "calculation+simulation+writing", not least by the fact that before a "calculation" and a "simulation", one has to know what one has to calculate and what one has to simulate! Mere

“calculation+simulation”

often leads to nothing worthy of “writing” about!

As for "writing", as a professional scientist of some experience I can permit myself the liberty of being frank in this space and mention that papers written by inexperienced scientists are on the whole (i.e. barring very rare exceptions) not worth reading: they are invariably shallow and un-informed as regards the extant body of knowledge to which they purport to contribute. Already reading PhD theses is a taxing activity, not for the PhD theses being technically too difficult to read, but for being written from often too narrow a perspective. I apologize for possibly offending some young and aspiring scientists who may happen to read my present text, but please note that I am not here for the sake of being pleasing to my readers, but for the sake of highlighting a problem that almost nowhere is talked about. Leading a fruitful scientific enquiry is not as trivial as may appear to many young and aspiring students.

I repeat, abusive, lazy and illiterate supervisors are not uncommon, so that without any doubt some students are fully justified in their complaints about their supervisors. However, I am against reserving the right to authorship to those who have performed "calculation” and “simulation", and "written" the pertinent manuscript; the process leading to a written manuscript is a very complex one, too complex to fit into the narrow mould of

"calculation+simulation+writing".


As the last point, I should like to share with the readers a practice that is actively pursued in one of the leading research laboratories in Europe. Although this practice may not be to the liking of some (indeed, this is not a common practice in other major research laboratories know to me), it has several merits (commercial companies pursue a somewhat similar practice for the purpose of collecting and registering the patentable material in the manuscripts to be submitted for publication).

The above-mentioned practice consists of requiring all papers to be submitted for publication to be reviewed internally: the head of the group from which a manuscript originates asks a member of a different group to review the paper at issue and make recommendations as though he/she were reviewing that paper in the capacity of a reviewer of the peer-reviewed journal to which the manuscript at hand is intended to be submitted. After reviewing this manuscript, the reviewer should fill in a standard document in which he/she should state whether (a) the paper contains sufficiently original material; (b) whether the paper cites the pertinent references; (c) whether the paper is written intelligibly; (d) whether the choice of the journal to which the manuscript is intended to be submitted is appropriate; etc. In this research institute, a paper that does not pass the internal examination, cannot be submitted for publication.

The above-mentioned internal reviewing system has several advantages. Firstly, it prevents plagiarism, of the kind reported on this website (well, assuming that the majority of the individuals in a Department are decent people and take their task as internal reviewers seriously). Secondly, it promotes a culture in which members of a Department remain up-to-date with regard to the research that is being carried out in their respective Department: in any given year, a person has carefully read a handful of papers by his/her colleagues, and in turn in the same year several of the colleagues of this person have carefully read and examined his/her scientific output.

An alternative, or even complementary procedure, which to my knowledge is practised in the elite schools of Russia (such as the Landau Institutes for theoretical and experimental physics), consists of the authors of a manuscript to be submitted for publication being required to deliver a (joint) seminar on the contents of this manuscript; for a single-author manuscript, naturally the last-mentioned seminar is to be delivered by its sole author. This practice has the advantage that the collective wisdom of a Department comes to have a positive influence on the contents of the manuscript to be submitted (the questions raised during the seminar are likely those that any capable and conscientious referee is likely to ask).

Kind regards,

BF.


[Note 1]. A case in point is the paring mechanism which is basic to the phenomenon of superconductivity, and the possibility of the existence of this pairing was beautifully demonstrated by Leon Cooper through investigating a two-body scattering problem in the presence of a filled Fermi sea; that paring mechanism is vital to (conventional) superconductivity was evident to Cooper’s teacher John Bardeen, who was convinced of the pairing mechanism through his detailed knowledge of a wealth of experimental data; Leon Cooper was just a brilliant young scientist who was well-equipped with the field-theoretical techniques that were very new at the time, without being as adept as John Bardeen in the phenomenology of the phenomenon of superconductivity. For those not in the know, the 1972 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and Robert Schrieffer, in this order. BF.
۱۸ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۱:۴۷ Mohammad
نهایت تقلب از سوی اساتید دانشگاه شریف صورت می گیرد , خصوصاً دانشکده مکانیک, دوستان مکانیک شریف نمونه های بسیاری را در خاطر دارند

1.درج نام اساتید به عنوان نویسنده اول,حتی زمانی که استاد هیچ مشارکتی در مقاله نداشته

2.استفاده از دانشجویان حل تمرین برای تدریس به جای استاد؛
حال بگذریم که دانشجوهای حل تمرین معمولاً بهتر از اساتید تدریس می کنند

3.استفاده از دانشجویان برای تدوین کتاب؛ انجام پروژه های صنعتی و موارد دیگر بصورت مجانی

نکته جالب توجه اینه که هرچه اسم دانشگاه بزرگتر می شه
میزان زد و بند و سو استفاده هم بیشتر میشه
البته باید قوانین مسخره دانشکده مکانیک شریف در سختگیری بیجا به دانشجویان تحصیلات تکمیلی و
سهل گیری بیمورد در مورد دانشجویان کارشناسی و اساتید راهنما را به موارد فوق افزود
۱۶ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۳:۱۲ Behrang Saeedzadeh
Your post is not formatted correctly. It's an LTR (Light-to-Reft) English post, however is is being rendered as an RTL (Right-To-Left) post. As a result, the placement of dots and other punctuation marks are messed up. You can place the content inside < dir style="direction:rtl;" > to fix this problem.
۱۶ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۰۱:۱۹ student
تمام حرفهای آقای دکتر جلالی درست است، اما این حرفها به درد دانشگاههای خارج میخورد.
در دانشگاههای ایران همانند شریف، دانشجو حق ندارد مقاله تنها بدهد (به عنوان مثال به قوانین تصویب شده در شریف نگاه کنید).
به علاوه دانشجو معمولا مجبور است اسم استاد راهنما را حتما بنویسد زیرا در قوانین معمولا مقالاتی را شمارش تعداد مقالات لازم ISI برای دانشجویان دکترا و یا مقالات کنفرانس دانشجویان ارشد هنگام نمره دادن به تز حساب میکنند که اسم استاد راهنما در آنها باشد.
به علاوه با این تفاسیر، تعداد کمی از مقالاتی که از روی تزها به دست نوشته میشوند اسم استاد راهنما را خواهند داشت، زیرا در ایران بسیاری از اساتید حتی وقت یکبار خواندن دقیق مقاله و غلط گیری (حداقل از حیث زبان انگلیسی) را ندارند، چه رسد به کمک در پیاده سازی و انجام شبیه سازی!
در ایران اتفاق میافتد که دانشجویی یک ایده دارد، آن را پیاده سازی میکند، مقاله را آماده می کند، حتی هزینه ثبت نام و شرکت در کنفرانس را از جیب خودش میدهد و استاد حداکثر با یک بار خواندن مقاله و به صرف اینکه استاد راهنما و یا استاد درس دانشجو بوده است، نامش به عنوان نفر دوم و یا حتی اول نوشته میشود.
۱۵ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۱۹:۰۱ M.A. Jalali
Thank you for your comments. I agree with the idea that weekly project meetings and contribution in those meetings is important and should be taken into account when the final paper is written. But I don't agree with the commnet of Mr. Farahmand that the initial idea should yield authorship. I have done several research projects that have been inspired (and suggested) by world-famous scientists, but they did not accept to be an author just because they believed that they have not contributed to the paper. This was their general attitude. They had their own collaborators and would co-author a paper only if they had done something. This is the difference between those who do their own research and those who hire others to do so. The latter are less respected at least in Physics and Mathematics community.
۱۵ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۱۷:۵۹ SoloGen
سلام،

به نظر می‌رسد قوانین چنین کاری آن‌چنان که شما نوشته‌اید بدیهی نیست. نه تنها افراد مختلف ممکن است بر سر ریزه‌کاری‌ها تفاوت عقیده داشته باشند، گاهی رسم و رسوم رشته‌های علمی‌ی مختلف شیوه‌های کاملا متفاوتی از کردیت‌دادن را ایجاب می‌کند. مثلا در بعضی رشته‌ها استادِ بزرگ آزمایش‌گاه بودن به خودی‌ی خود شخص را نویسنده‌ی مقاله می‌کند.

جدا از این نکته، یک اختلاف نظر دیگر هم با شما دارم. برخلاف شما بر این باورم که شخص‌ای که ایده‌ی اصلی‌ی پژوهش را داده است، به اندازه‌ی کافی در پژوهش مشارکت کرده است که اسم‌اش جزو نویسندگان مقاله بیاید. همه‌ی مقاله‌های دنیا که محاسبات بدیهی نیستند که به ذهن هر کس‌ای بیاید. پیش‌نهاد ایده‌ی پژوهشی نیز بخش‌ای از پژوهش است و باید کردیت داده شود. تفاوت تنها در میزان مشارکت است و این‌که آیا آن شخص باید نویسنده‌ی اول باشد،‌ دوم باشد یا آخر.


در نهایت به نظر می‌آید کم‌دردسرترین شیوه برای مشخص‌کردن این‌که چه کس‌ای باید نویسنده‌ی مقاله باشد و چه کس‌ای نباشد، توافق اولیه است. توافق این‌که هر کس‌ای چه بخش‌ای از مقاله را بر عهده می‌گیرد و در نهایت در کجای فهرست نویسندگان قرار بگیرد.

امیرمسعود فرهمند
یک پیش‌نهاد به مسوولین بلاگ: آیا می‌توانید تنظیمات این بلاگ را جوری تغییر دهید که افراد ناشناس یا افرادی که صاحب وب‌سایت‌های دیگری هستند و نمی‌خواهند با اکانت گوگل/بلاگر/OpenID کامنت بگذارند هم بتوانند مشارکت کنند؟
۱۵ شهریور ۸۷ ، ۱۷:۰۰ کیارش بازرگان
من موافق نیستم که یک استاد فقط و فقط وقتی قسمتی از محاسبات را انجام داده میتواند اسم خود را در لیست نویسندگان فرار دهد. ممکن است یک استاد راهنما جلسات هفتگی با دانشجو داشته باشد و در جریان کار هفته قبل قرار بگیرد، اشکالات کار دانشجو را پیدا و برطرف کند و مسیر تحقیق را هدایت کند بدون اینکه دست به قلم ببرد و کاری کند. در انتها هم مقاله را ویرایش کند (دانشجو مقاله را بنویسد) و چند بار بین خود و دانشجو مقاله را رد و بدل کند تا اشکالات علمی و ویرایشی کار برطرف شود. در این صورت، هیچ اشکالی ندارد که استاد نام خود را در آخر لیست نویسندگان قرار دهد.

کاملا قبول دارم که فقط وقتی اسم استاد اول میآید که بیش از 50 درصد کار اعم از محاسبات، انجام آزمایشها و نوشتن مقاله را استاد انجام داده باشد.

ارسال نظر

ارسال نظر آزاد است، اما اگر قبلا در بیان ثبت نام کرده اید می توانید ابتدا وارد شوید.
شما میتوانید از این تگهای html استفاده کنید:
<b> یا <strong>، <em> یا <i>، <u>، <strike> یا <s>، <sup>، <sub>، <blockquote>، <code>، <pre>، <hr>، <br>، <p>، <a href="" title="">، <span style="">، <div align="">
تجدید کد امنیتی

استادان علیه تقلب

Professors Against Plagiarism