• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Springer Open Choice >Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD?
【2h】

Deconstructing doctoral dissertations: how many papers does it take to make a PhD?

机译：解构博士学位论文：博士学位需要多少篇论文？

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务，本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文，但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁，仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况，如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

A collection of coauthored papers is the new norm for doctoral dissertations in the natural and biomedical sciences, yet there is no consensus on how to partition authorship credit between PhD candidates and their coauthors. Guidelines for PhD programs vary but tend to specify only a suggested range for the number of papers to be submitted for evaluation, sometimes supplemented with a requirement for the PhD candidate to be the principal author on the majority of submitted papers. Here I use harmonic counting to quantify the actual amount of authorship credit attributable to individual PhD graduates from two Scandinavian universities in 2008. Harmonic counting corrects for the inherent inflationary and equalizing biases of routine counting methods, thereby allowing the bibliometrically identifiable amount of authorship credit in approved dissertations to be analyzed with unprecedented accuracy. Unbiased partitioning of authorship credit between graduates and their coauthors provides a post hoc bibliometric measure of current PhD requirements, and sets a de facto baseline for the requisite scientific productivity of these contemporary PhD’s at a median value of approximately 1.6 undivided papers per dissertation. Comparison with previous census data suggests that the baseline has shifted over the past two decades as a result of a decrease in the number of submitted papers per candidate and an increase in the number of coauthors per paper. A simple solution to this shifting baseline syndrome would be to benchmark the amount of unbiased authorship credit deemed necessary for successful completion of a specific PhD program, and then monitor for departures from this level over time. Harmonic partitioning of authorship credit also facilitates cross-disciplinary and inter-institutional analysis of the scientific output from different PhD programs. Juxtaposing bibliometric benchmarks with current baselines may thus assist the development of harmonized guidelines and transparent transnational quality assurance procedures for doctoral programs by providing a robust and meaningful standard for further exploration of the causes of intra- and inter-institutional variation in the amount of unbiased authorship credit per dissertation.
机译：合著论文的收集是自然科学和生物医学领域博士论文的新规范，但是在如何在博士候选人及其共同作者之间划分作者荣誉方面尚无共识。博士学位课程的指导方针各不相同，但往往只规定了要提交评估的论文数量的建议范围，有时还会补充要求博士候选人成为大多数已提交论文的主要作者。在这里，我使用谐波计数来量化可归因于来自两所斯堪的纳维亚大学的博士研究生在2008年的实际著作权学分。批准的论文以前所未有的准确性进行分析。毕业生及其合著者之间作者权的无偏分配提供了对当前博士学位要求的事后文献计量，并为这些当代博士学位的必要科学生产率设定了事实上的基线，其平均价值为每篇论文1.6篇未分论文。与以前的人口普查数据比较表明，由于每位候选人提交的论文数量减少以及每篇论文的合著者数量增加，基线在过去的二十年中发生了变化。解决这种不断变化的基线综合症的简单方法是，对成功完成特定博士课程所必需的无偏见作者信用额进行基准测试，然后监控一段时间内偏离该水平的情况。作者信用的和谐划分也促进了跨学科和跨机构分析来自不同博士课程的科学成果。因此，通过将文献计量基准与当前基准并置，可以为进一步研究博士论文作者偏见的机构内和机构间差异的原因提供可靠而有意义的标准，从而有助于为博士课程制定统一的准则和透明的跨国质量保证程序每篇论文的学分。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号