| Title |
Programmers, Professors, and Parasites: Credit and Co-Authorship in Computer Science
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Science and Engineering Ethics, February 2009
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11948-009-9119-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Justin Solomon |
| Abstract |
This article presents an in-depth analysis of past and present publishing practices in academic computer science to suggest the establishment of a more consistent publishing standard. Historical precedent for academic publishing in computer science is established through the study of anecdotes as well as statistics collected from databases of published computer science papers. After examining these facts alongside information about analogous publishing situations and standards in other scientific fields, the article concludes with a list of basic principles that should be adopted in any computer science publishing standard. These principles would contribute to the reliability and scientific nature of academic publications in computer science and would allow for more straightforward discourse in future publications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 2 | 67% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 38 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| France | 1 | 3% |
| South Africa | 1 | 3% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 3% |
| Canada | 1 | 3% |
| Spain | 1 | 3% |
| United States | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 32 | 84% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 24% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 9 | 24% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Computer Science | 17 | 45% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 2 | 5% |
| Psychology | 2 | 5% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 6 | 16% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2017.
All research outputs
#3,141,832
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#257
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,319
of 95,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#1
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 95,960 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them