Details to consider when writing a scientific article

SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE DETAILS

How to Order Authors and Their Addresses?

"Administrative and professional jealousy, empire-building, and acceptance of the publish-or-perish theory are just a few of the serpents in paradise. These, combined with the poisonous serpents of industry, contract, corporateness, establishment traditions and regulations, They form the snake hole of the professional writing world." John H. Mitchell

ORDER OF NAMES

The easiest part of preparing a scientific paper is entering the secondary lines: the authors and their addresses. Sometimes!
It's not every day that I hear of a new duel over the order of author names, but I do know of cases where otherwise sensible colleagues became mortal enemies of each other simply because they couldn't agree on whose names should be in what order.

What is the correct order? Unfortunately, there are no agreed upon or generally accepted rules. Some journals (mainly British, I think) require author names to be in alphabetical order. This type of trivial, simple ranking system has much to recommend it. However, the alphabetical system has not yet been used by everyone, especially in the USA.
In the past, there was a general tendency to put the laboratory director as the author, regardless of whether he or she was actively involved in the research. Often the director was placed last (second of two writers, third of three writers, etc.). As a result, the final location was one chosen for its self-granted prestige. Thus, two authors, neither of whom was a laboratory director and neither of whom was even more experienced, could share this second location. If there were three or more authors, the important author would want the first or last place, not somewhere in between.

A more modern trend is to identify the first author as the primary producer and experienced author of the work being published. Even when the first author is a student and the second (third or fourth) author is a laboratory director, perhaps a Nobel laureate, it is now accepted to refer to the first author as the experienced author and assume that that person did most or all of the research.

The tendency for laboratory directors to insist that their names be placed on every published paper coming out of their laboratories is still with us. So is the tendency to use the laundry list approach, where practically everyone in the laboratory is named as an author, including technicians who may have washed the glassware after the experiments were completed. Moreover, the trend towards collaborative research is constantly increasing. Therefore, the average number of authors per article is increasing.

A new trend and I think a very good trend; It is the granting of established, experienced scientists to their younger colleagues or students. This encouragement of the younger generation celebrates the process of good science and reveals the character of the experienced scientist who elegantly engages in its practice.

DEFINITION OF AUTHORITY

Perhaps we can now define authorship by saying that the list of authors should include only those individuals who actively participated in the design and execution of experiments. Moreover, writers normally; The first author is accepted as an experienced writer; The second author should be listed in order of importance according to the experiments, with the second author as the main collaborator and the third author as the author with an equivalent but possibly lesser contribution to the work. Colleagues or study supervisors should neither ask nor allow their names to be included in studies describing research with which they are not personally involved. The author of a paper should be identified as the person who has intellectual responsibility for the presented research results.

We must admit that this problem is not always easy to solve. It is often incredibly difficult to review the intellectual input in a paper. Naturally, those who worked intensively on a research problem together for months or years may have difficulty remembering who provided the original research ideas or whose bright idea was key to the success of the experiments. And what do these colleagues do when they suddenly realize that everything falls into place with an intriguing question from someone in a traditional, neighboring laboratory who has nothing to do with the research?
Each named author must have made a significant contribution to the work described. The word important refers here to the aspects of the study that produce new knowledge and define the concept of an original scientific article.
The lineage of authors on the published article should be agreed upon in full agreement before the work begins. Later, depending on the direction the research takes, a change may be necessary. But it would be unwise to leave this important question of authorship until the very end of the research process.

On one occasion, I saw 10 or more authors listed in one article (sometimes just one note). For example, an article by F. Bulos et al (Phys. Rev. Letters 13: 486, 1964) had 27 authors and only 12 paragraphs. Such papers often come from very small laboratories that cannot fit even ten people, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the experiment.
What is taken into consideration when writers list the host? There may be various reasons. But the root cause is undoubtedly the publish-or-perish syndrome. Some people so effectively woo their colleagues with pleasant behavior that they appear as authors on most or all of the papers that come out of their labs. Their research productivity is actually poor, but their end-of-year publication lists can be really large. In some institutions, such inflated lists can result in promotion. Such swellings are also considered resourcefulness. However, the practice is not recommended. Maybe these easy-going people can deceive a few administrators and gain momentary advantages. But good scientists; I have no doubt that they would neither allow their own work to be diluted by adding the names of other people for their tiny contributions, nor would they want their own names to be tarnished by the names of so many incompetent people.
Briefly, the scientific article should list those who have mainly contributed to the study. The diluting effect of the multi-author approach negatively affects real research (And as a former manager-editor, I cannot help but add that this practice, which requires censorship, drags those of us who deal with the use and control of scientific literature into bibliographic nightmares). An in-depth discussion on Guidelines for Writing Medical Articles has been published by Huth (26).

SIRAYI TANIMLAMAK: ÖRNEK YAZI

Belki aşağıdaki örnek, yazarlığı tanımlaması gereken kavramsal ve teknik katkı seviyesini açıklığa kavuşturmada yardımcı olur.
Varsayalım ki, bilim adamı A yeni bilgi üretecek bir seri deney tasarımı yapmış olsun ve sonra bu bilim adamı, B teknisyenine deneylerin nasıl yapılacağını göstermiş olsun. Deneyler çalışır ve bir metinle sonuçlanırsa, bilim adamı A, B teknisyeni bütün işleri yapmış olsa bile, tek yazar olmalıdır. (Kuşkusuz, B teknisyeninin yardımı Teşekkür kısmında anılmalıdır.)

Varsayalım ki deneyler yürümesin. B teknisyeni, olumsuz sonuçları bilim adamı Aya götürsün ve şöyle bir şey desin, Zannederim, bu Allahın cezası şekil değiştirmeyi, inkübasyon sıcaklığını 24°Cden 37°Ca değiştirir ve ortama serum albümini katarsak büyütebiliriz. Bilim adamı deneyi kabul eder, deneyler bu defa istenen sonucu verir ve makale ile sonuçlanır. Bu takdirde, bilim adamı A ve teknisyen B-bu sırayla-her ikisi de yazar olarak gözükmelidir.

Bu örneği bir adım daha öteye götürelim. Varsayalım ki, 37°C deki serum albüminli deneyler çalışıyor, fakat bilim adamı A şimdi açıkça boşta kalan bir kısım olduğunu farkeder. Yani bu şartlar altında büyüme, test organizmasının bir patojen olduğunu göstermiştir.

Tags : Bilimsel Arastirma in game of gold miner,sozler,bilim nedir