Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research

Author:

Penders BartORCID,Lutz Peter,Shaw David M.,Townend David M. R.

Abstract

AbstractIdeally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.

Funder

ZonMw

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Management, Monitoring, Policy and Law,Philosophy,Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (miscellaneous)

Reference57 articles.

1. Bezuidenhout, Louise. 2017. The relational responsibilities of scientists: (Re) considering science as a practice. Research Ethics 13 (2): 65–83.

2. Biagioli, Mario. 1998. The instability of authorship: Credit and responsibility in contemporary biomedicine. The FASEB Journal 12 (1): 3–16.

3. Biagioli, Mario. 2000. Rights or reward: Changing contexts and definitions of scientific authorship. Journal of College and University Law 27: 83.

4. Bowen, G.A. 2006. Grounded theory and sensitzing concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods 5 (3): 1–9.

5. Cummings, Jonathon N., and Sara Kiesler. 2005. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science 35 (5): 703–722.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3