人类胚胎干细胞的生物学特点和多向分化 - 胚胎干细胞专区干细胞之家



免疫细胞治疗专区	欢迎关注干细胞微信公众号

1 2 345 下一页

返回列表

楼主: cdk1	go 人类胚胎干细胞的生物学特点和多向分化 [复制链接]

penghuimin

新手上路

Rank: 1

积分: 25
威望: 25
包包: 142

31楼

发表于 2010-3-18 14:28 |只看该作者

Chapter 5
How to List the Authors and Addresses

6 Q" a& K* C3 J! ^
* b* U3 ?9 r7 N& a7 F2 o

Few would dispute that researchers have to take responsibility for papers that have their names on them. A senior laboratory figure who puts his or her name on a paper without direct supervision or involvement is unquestionably abusing the system of credit. There have been occasions where distinguished scientists have put their names irresponsibly on a paper that has turned out to contain serious errors or fraud. Rightly, some of them have paid a heavy price.
—Editorial, Nature, p. 831, 26 June 1997  $ D3 N* h! B8 s- m/ }- q
' ~/ d1 d# A3 x) \% V( y6 m$ ?
5 ?4 U, |0 w) E

: J4 F1 B: I+ x2 [# W' ~: `: E
The Order of the Names  5 I) _# B! P* e, H

* g" v% c, Z! T) z. X

; h) y) K8 a& E7 r5 K
"If you have co-authors, problems about authorship can range from the trivial to the catastrophic" (O'Connor, 1991).
  H: y' p  k1 Z8 o; x
) q2 W/ z2 t) j- H, H

0 f/ ?; q  s/ q" W/ }
The easiest part of preparing a scientific paper is simply the entering of the bylines: the authors and addresses. Sometimes.  5 W# l( E. J# Z2 E; {4 x2 j
6 K+ Q& B- c& B  k' J3 B4 r
+ u7 j' ~3 q6 j2 }0 f1 s# A  G- Z  P
: R0 n6 Y4 y) A, j3 ?* l

I haven't yet heard of a duel being fought over the order of listing of authors, but I know of instances in which otherwise reasonable, rational colleagues have become bitter enemies solely because they could not agree on whose names should be listed or in what order.  1 M, v% c9 M& _2 G6 f$ W7 `6 m& E
  |2 q7 n; O4 f5 S. ~/ _# d/ t
7 f3 h, I0 `8 [4 v! ^4 n

2 k" V* s, }8 b# t# ?5 t2 a
What is the right order? Unfortunately, there are no agreed-upon rules or generally accepted conventions. Some authors, perhaps to avoid arguments among themselves, agree to list their names alphabetically. In  7 I0 i6 J: ]$ ]5 q& r6 a# U
6 X- |$ |0 k( r2 T7 i# _0 T
+ l' t# F. b5 n+ X& g; G
) l9 P! P' O, V  }/ }- X# v
* J1 _+ m; y8 P6 {! z
/ J0 [! N6 H0 A5 ~8 D: S
  : `/ @5 x: h) ~8 H' P. g$ C



Page 23
, h! V0 {+ o& I& k6 V; B8 H1 u
/ Z- j& s: O9 \! K
the field of mathematics, this practice appears to be universal. Such a simple, nonsignificant ordering system has much to recommend it, but the alphabetical system has not yet become common, especially in the United States.
0 e% S3 i! K: H8 ^

   n, S8 ]2 ?( s1 E% e' X
) c* z; n6 o+ R" }' N
In the past, there has been a general tendency to list the head of the laboratory as an author whether or not he or she actively participated in the research. Often, the "head" was placed last (second of two authors, third of three, etc.). As a result, the terminal spot seemed to acquire prestige. Thus, two authors, neither of whom was head of a laboratory or even necessarily a senior professor, would vie for the second spot. If there are three or more authors, the "important" author will want the first or last position, but not in between.

! N% t1 r& C% c4 z; ]  h
+ v5 o$ J( s* {0 S; J- i
A countervailing and more modern tendency has been to define the first author as the senior author and primary progenitor of the work being reported. Even when the first author is a graduate student and the second (third, fourth) author is head of the laboratory, perhaps even a Nobel Laureate, it is now accepted form to refer to the first author as the "senior author" and to assume that he or she did most or all of the research.

( }! ^5 H2 M+ D: P: C9 z! M, M3 O! _

The tendency for laboratory directors to insist upon having their own names on all papers published from their laboratories is still with us. So is the tendency to use the "laundry list" approach, naming as an author practically everyone in the laboratory, including technicians who may have cleaned the glassware after the experiments were completed. In addition, the trend toward collaborative research is steadily increasing. Thus, the average number of authors per paper is on the rise.

: o7 ]* e4 A: f1 D  M3 Q' G
Definition of Authorship

! K. b# D9 _$ |: l3 i
# O4 b! e( F0 C; |
Perhaps we can now define authorship by saying that the listing of authors should include those, and only those, who actively contributed to the overall design and execution of the experiments. Further, the authors should normally be listed in order of importance to the experiments, the first author being acknowledged as the senior author, the second author being the primary associate, the third author possibly being equivalent to the second but more likely having a lesser involvement with the work reported. Colleagues or supervisors should neither ask to have their names on manuscripts nor allow their names to be put on manuscripts reporting research with which they themselves have not been intimately involved. An author of a paper should be defined as one
% Y5 S$ E3 H' f" o

* X' a; A& {" S! a6 _3 ^

  $ b9 t, c1 T1 {4 D2 K* |3 C2 Q



Page 24

" c4 O2 ~2 [8 Z/ ?
who takes intellectual responsibility for the research results being reported. However, this definition must be tempered by realizing that modern science in many fields is collaborative and multidisciplinary. It may be unrealistic to assume that all authors can defend all aspects of a paper written by contributors from a variety of disciplines. Even so, each author should be held fully responsible for his or her choice of colleagues.  8 j$ r; z) ^; p; l& s' Y* T
8 R$ C/ A8 @' r2 d
: K9 L- S( Z7 ~
8 v' Z3 b( N7 u& |9 R- b; }
( C2 {' y" {6 _+ G' f, Y
Admittedly, resolution of this question is not always easy. It is often incredibly difficult to analyze the intellectual input to a paper. Certainly, those who have worked together intensively for months or years on a research problem might have difficulty in remembering who had the original research concept or whose brilliant idea was the key to the success of the experiments. And what do these colleagues do when everything suddenly falls into place as a result of a searching question by the traditional "guy in the next lab" who had nothing whatever to do with the research?  " L! K* K$ l% `4 a3 f2 z1 |- J6 p

* _) C; ~3 G6 ]. U1 b" v0 o& J

9 G4 G# B/ T* Q
Each listed author should have made an important contribution to the study being reported, "important" referring to those aspects of the study which produced new information, the concept that defines an original scientific paper.
) Q# n, d* n: J5 @" H) m# T2 w
& k6 B' h, A' F7 A8 C
* q# |3 E/ q  y$ m2 U9 |
" U4 |8 x- o& M/ b& G- Y& T
The sequence of authors on a published paper should be decided, unanimously, before the research is started. A change may be required later, depending on which turn the research takes, but it is foolish to leave this important question of authorship to the very end of the research process.

% w2 X4 h0 A5 Q3 i. y0 M6 U" j3 x$ ]% j
   _5 r1 i( h6 l! B7 X3 W3 ]
& L  \/ o3 M' E" H$ r( O  m& Z
On occasion, I have seen 10 or more authors listed at the head of a paper (sometimes only a Note). For example, a paper by F. Bulos et al. (Phys. Rev. Letters 13:486, 1964) had 27 authors and only 12 paragraphs. Such papers frequently come from laboratories that are so small that 10 people couldn't fit into the lab, let alone make a meaningful contribution to the experiment.
  l, O) V* Y; P6 ~& w
% _/ G7 P! D( k& V
* e  k7 i$ Y6 B- b; B

What accounts for the tendency to list a host of authors? There may be several reasons, but the primary one no doubt relates to the publish-or-perish syndrome. Some workers wheedle or cajole their colleagues so effectively that they become authors of most or all of the papers coming out of their laboratory. Their research productivity might in fact be meager, yet at year's end their publication lists might indeed be exten-

& ?& z: {  q; e. \* |! v" B
) ?# ~0 r  {* u6 r) M, e% }' ?
! s0 a0 |2 N6 b, R: g
% ~8 Y4 p7 U. V) g
  : ~9 S$ T6 t  ?; ]8 ~
5 N& H. y# ~' k9 o& k9 O
  4 \' _5 @- ~4 K
) A. j! ]$ k5 u& g5 b
Page 25 : F6 |9 D4 \9 K" B

sive. In some institutions, such padded lists might result in promotion. Nonetheless, the practice is not recommended. Perhaps a few administrators are fooled, and momentary advantages are sometimes gained by these easy riders. But I suspect that good scientists do not allow dilution of their own work by adding other people's names for their minuscule contributions, nor do they want their own names sullied by addition of the names of a whole herd of lightweights.  0 x" C$ n2 F: r* j/ a  j* e
# R/ K9 t8 a- x) f: F1 V! M

7 A+ |3 i, p3 X+ q2 U+ O6 Y

In short, the scientific paper should list as authors only those who contributed substantially to the work. The dilution effect of the multiauthor approach adversely affects the real investigators. (And, as a former managing editor, I can't help adding that this reprehensible practice leads to bibliographic nightmares for all of us involved with use and control of the scientific literature.) A thorough discussion on "Guidelines on Authorship of Medical Papers" has been published by Huth (1986).
1 W: ]9 U1 G+ X: T- h+ F
5 N! E# o9 t4 q* |
" b5 D' u6 [- X0 V5 S  |6 y& |/ H
" A5 Q; a# h9 b9 N( D& s1 @0 I
Defining the Order: an Example
+ \) e9 D6 J8 P7 A

" l2 ?2 `- p/ E& Q4 r, e+ I$ L) Q8 z
+ k$ _6 x7 M$ v& U8 l
Perhaps the following example will help clarify the level of conceptual or technical involvement that should define authorship.
+ J: C6 ^8 I' a

0 n+ m$ @& g% v$ f$ |5 L3 b
Suppose that Scientist A designs a series of experiments that might result in important new knowledge, and then Scientist A tells Technician B exactly how to perform the experiments. If the experiments work out and a manuscript results, Scientist A should be the sole author, even though Technician B did all the work. (Of course, the assistance of Technician B should be recognized in the Acknowledgments.)

2 `9 h+ x+ \1 c2 g, Y, y% ~7 z  e

Now let us suppose that the above experiments do not work out. Technician B takes the negative results to Scientist A and says something like, "I think we might get this damned strain to grow if we change the incubation temperature from 24 to 37°C and if we add serum albumin to the medium." Scientist A agrees to a trial, the experiments this time yield the desired outcome, and a paper results. In this case, Scientist A and Technician B, in that order, should both be listed as authors.

( l3 e( A) d& i6 o5 r

Let us take this example one step further. Suppose that the experiments at 37°C and with serum albumin work, but that Scientist A perceives that there is now an obvious loose end; that is, growth under these conditions suggests that the test organism is a pathogen, whereas the previously published literature had indicated that this organism was

; s- F. d" [( h% j" z' {
* V* i+ `  d% O8 I" ?  Z
% N: |, U2 ~+ I5 c' z# u0 y& ]' n  \
# ^  W0 _$ ]! K0 A5 `0 R5 i! n




Page 26
! \: q: {; R, L9 n" O6 W

nonpathogenic. Scientist A now asks colleague Scientist C, an expert in pathogenic microbiology, to test this organism for pathogenicity. Scientist C runs a quick test by injecting the test substance into laboratory mice in a standard procedure that any medical microbiologist would use and confirms pathogenicity. A few important sentences are then added to the manuscript, and the paper is published. Scientist A and Technician B are listed as authors; the assistance of Scientist C is noted in the Acknowledgments.

" s+ i+ R# {) m& v& s6 i
Suppose, however, that Scientist C gets interested in this peculiar strain and proceeds to conduct a series of well-planned experiments which lead to the conclusion that this particular strain is not just mouse-pathogenic, but is the long-sought culprit in certain rare human infections. Thus, two new tables of data are added to the manuscript, and the Results and Discussion are rewritten. The paper is then published listing Scientist A, Technician B, and Scientist C as authors. (A case could be made for listing Scientist C as the second author.)  . ^4 P) u( }# u4 l9 b
5 C+ C+ ?! F( C: P3 S7 ?
  z2 w# `5 C) J# v+ Z: V2 m7 B

; u8 |' m0 y, T1 ~6 i7 ]3 S
Proper and Consistent Form  % _( I0 F8 E! I
4 e) o$ T2 z* T% |1 d

9 E2 D9 h; n4 f1 Z+ |

As to names of authors, the preferred designation normally is first name, middle initial, last name. If an author uses only initials, which has been a regrettable tendency in science, the scientific literature may become confused. If there are two people named Jonathan B. Jones, the literature services can probably keep them straight (by addresses). But if dozens of people publish under the name J. B. Jones (especially if, on occasion, some of them use Jonathan B. Jones), the retrieval services have a hopeless task in keeping things neat and tidy. Many scientists resist the temptation to change their names (after marriage, for religious reasons, or by court order), knowing that their published work will be separated.  : N' n6 H1 A& s/ |) A5 e
6 K+ R* x" {- g6 {

' t& i* ~  T4 q% U$ M0 w! y+ h

Instead of first name, middle initial, and last name, wouldn't it be better to spell out the middle name? No. Again, we must realize that literature retrieval is a computerized process (and that computers can be easily confused). An author with common names (e.g., Robert Jones) might be tempted to spell out his or her middle name, thinking that Robert Smith Jones is more distinctive than Robert S. Jones. However, the resulting double name is a problem. Should the computer index the author as "Jones" or as "Smith Jones"? Because double names, with or without hyphens, are common, especially in England and in Latin  $ B! `3 A  Q/ w5 P1 U
% ]- t: A) ]3 z( p9 T' D- i
% ^. X) z% X6 v- R$ v3 i
3 T5 m7 @# x( e


6 P: v, A9 N' {4 [2 g% E

. a- q- C0 y0 v8 F( H0 \6 Z% v
Page 27 9 Z  c' P! D1 R; p! M& ^% X
: @7 P% \7 L8 R2 }! g: i
. @5 {2 Q' k, C3 j4 Z- t! l/ n, C
America, this problem is not an easy one for computers (or for their programmers).  4 y* a! t7 ~3 k8 ~' C3 ^
5 q4 {4 P: ?$ _+ L+ ^
7 A5 @' z+ P) T0 i: W( d
/ b1 @/ y% T5 X) K( g# o* R, |

In addition, many computerized library catalogs and literature retrieval systems are based on the principle of truncation. Thus, one does not need to key in a long title or even a whole name; time is saved by shortening (truncating) the entry. But, if one types in "Day, RA," for example, a screen will appear showing all of the Rachel Days, Ralph Days, Raymond Days, etc., but not Robert A. Day. Therefore, the use of initials rather than first names can cause trouble.

* l9 T; H3 a8 J9 P$ l2 X

In general, scientific journals do not print either degrees or titles after authors' names. (You know what "B.S." means. "M.S." is More of the Same. "Ph.D." is Piled Higher and Deeper. "M.D.'' is Much Deeper.) However, most medical journals do give degrees after the names. Titles are also often listed in medical journals, either after the names and degrees or in footnotes on the title page. Even in medical journals, however, degrees and titles (Dr., for example) are not given in the Literature Cited. Contributors should consult the journal's Instructions to Authors or a recent issue regarding preferred usage.

If a journal allows both degrees and titles, perhaps a bit of advertising might be allowed also, as suggested by the redoubtable Leo Rosten (1968):  ; z% K5 T" g$ w" M6 l
- J& W% V, C  f; l6 T! X
5 S; @. D4 U* b1 H
4 X# `3 |, s+ n# d* ~
* x- X5 i$ R5 w3 H+ J0 K% P) {" d
Dr. Joseph Kipnis—Psychiatrist
Dr. Eli Lowitz—Proctologist
Specialists in Odds and Ends.  3 \7 v* S0 c' f7 ]" N* V1 v# A
, `$ G7 L7 g) K. a% r! t

) y& S0 d( S- j+ i: I; B2 @( u
Dr. M. J. Kornblum and Dr. Albert Steinkoff,
Obstetricians 24 Hour Service . . . We Deliver.
$ l' B" ?" }' c

, }" [& E. s' i
6 y/ `+ U9 ~9 J4 Y4 i" e4 V
Listing the Addresses
. {7 f" v5 Z1 X0 L0 t

5 _' r2 g1 L( w; {; }

The rules of listing the addresses are simple but often broken. As a result, authors cannot always be connected with addresses. Most often, however, it is the style of the journal that creates confusion, rather than sins of commission or omission by the author.

With one author, one address is given (the name and address of the laboratory in which the work was done). If, before publication, the author has moved to a different address, the new address should be indicated in a "Present Address" footnote.

; U3 `. Z( M3 U3 Z2 G' Z0 S! _
  C) X& ?4 ?5 j% ~1 q


  ' f1 ]2 n# W& O3 t! e0 s/ ^/ [  X3 d9 z

Page 28 ' v& l2 F# t$ h4 H

When two or more authors are listed, each in a different institution, the addresses should be listed in the same order as the authors.  5 \( r4 [: e8 ?* R; ^' I2 B& k
0 e& T5 \; X# v7 k# i, p

7 f; _) q- j" b  P# P
; b/ f6 W( F* ]3 Y
The primary problem arises when a paper is published by, let us say, three authors from two institutions. In such instances, each author's name and address should include an appropriate designation such as a superior a, b, or c after the author's name and before (or after) the appropriate address.
* E& u# j  V# n# a* w. c
, K' u9 q; ~. h/ l' p

# U' w; M) {2 U8 W9 P# \, h- [
This convention is often useful to readers who may want to know whether R. Jones is at Yale or at Harvard. Clear identification of authors and addresses is also of prime importance to several of the secondary services. For these services to function properly, they need to know whether a paper published by J. Jones was authored by the J. Jones of Iowa State or the J. Jones of Cornell or the J. Jones of Cambridge University in England. Only when authors can be properly identified can their publications be grouped together in citation indexes.  / z: `  a7 `+ K1 q# Z
% K# ~0 H6 y& n3 m6 z/ C, j
" Z' w6 z) T  L$ a) c+ m

: \& ?$ Q. Q/ K6 o
Purposes

' a( N0 ^3 B  f$ M& y) c% v

Remember that an address serves two purposes. It serves to identify the author; it also supplies (or should supply) the author's mailing address. The mailing address is necessary for many reasons, the most common one being to denote the source of reprints. Although it is not necessary as a rule to give street addresses for most institutions, it should be mandatory these days to provide postal codes.

Some journals use asterisks, footnotes, or the Acknowledgments to indicate "the person to whom inquiries regarding the paper should be addressed." Authors should be aware of journal policy in this regard, and they should decide in advance who is to purchase and distribute reprints and from what address (since normally it is the institution that purchases the reprints, not the individual).  # O4 g) ]" f$ g! ?

% L8 {4 T- D( r6 Y: L2 _, K8 W
/ N, R" @5 _% x
Unless a scientist wishes to publish anonymously (or as close to it as possible), a full name and a full address should be considered obligatory.