In this presentation, we offer a conceptual analysis on the notion of Moral Authorship and explore in what ways the notion is promising in the field of Teaching and Education. We compare Moral Authorship with other notions, namely ‘normative professionalism’, ‘the good professional’, ‘reflective professionalism', ‘professional autonomy’, ‘professional responsibility’ and ‘moral craftmanship’. The comparison shows that each concept has a particular focus and use in practice. The notion of Moral Authorship seems promising in at least two ways: the association with authorship leads to a renewed attitude towards professional agency, and it can combine (the most) promising aspects of other concepts. Paper presented at the AME 2017 Conference
DOCUMENT
Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
DOCUMENT
This article focuses on moral authorship as an element of the professional development of novice teachers in the Netherlands. Moral authorship refers to the ability of teachers to observe, identify, verbalize and reflect on the moral aspects of their work in a proactive and dialogical manner. We elaborate on moral authorship by theoretically exploring six interdependent tasks of moral meaning making: moral commitment, awareness, orientation and positioning, moral performance and evaluation. Narratives of 19 novice teachers were analyzed to explore moral authorship in teachers’ talk. The results show the opportunities of moral authorship to support, navigate, and reinforce the professional development of novice teachers. This study suggests professional self-dialogs for enhancing the development of moral authorship.
LINK
This presentation reports on the status of an assessment-tool for Moral Authorship that is being developed for teachers and discusses its reliability and validation. Moral Authorship refers to the ability of teachers to observe, identify, articulate and reflect on moral aspects in their work in a thoughtful and dialogical way. The developed assessment tool is based on the concept of Moral Authorship, which describes moral meaning-making in a narrative way and distinguishes six tasks as points of attention, to identify topics of concern which arise when reflecting on the development of one’s morality (Gertsen, Schaap & Bakker, 2017). Paper presented at the AME 2017 Conference
DOCUMENT
A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21–31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15–21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47–56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9–12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13–18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys’ methods and reporting needs improvement.
MULTIFILE
Calls have been made for improving transparency in conducting and reporting research, improving work climates, and preventing detrimental research practices. To assess attitudes and practices regarding these topics, we sent a survey to authors, reviewers, and editors. We received 3,659 (4.9%) responses out of 74,749 delivered emails. We found no significant differences between authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ attitudes towards transparency in conducting and reporting research, or towards their perceptions of work climates. Undeserved authorship was perceived by all groups as the most prevalent detrimental research practice, while fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and not citing prior relevant research, were seen as more prevalent by editors than authors or reviewers. Overall, 20% of respondents admitted sacrificing the quality of their publications for quantity, and 14% reported that funders interfered in their study design or reporting. While survey respondents came from 126 different countries, due to the survey’s overall low response rate our results might not necessarily be generalizable. Nevertheless, results indicate that greater involvement of all stakeholders is needed to align actual practices with current recommendations.
MULTIFILE
Welcome to the fourth special issue of the Pervasive Labour Union zine, Urgent Publishing Debris. In May 2019, the Making Public: Urgent Publishing Conference took place. Among others, it asked the following questions:-"How to realize sustainable, high-quality alternatives within this domain of post-digital publishing?"-"How can designers, developers, artists, writers and publishers intervene in the public debate and counter misinformation in a meaningful and relevant way?"-"What are new publishing strategies for our current media landscape?"-"How to design for urgency without succumbing to an accelerated hype cycle?"The presentations, debates and conversations have all been officially documented in blogposts on the Institute of Network Cultures website, videos and pictures. But what about the notes, the pictures, the recordings and the tweets of the conference's visitors? What do they have to tell us about how each person experienced the conference? This special issue aims to provide new readings of the event by creating remixes of the official archival sources with the 'unofficial' debris circulating around it.In order to facilitate the navigation between articles, making connections visible where they might have only been implicit, the editors have decided to define eleven overarching topics (Social/Community, Activism, Post-truth, New forms, Authorship/Makers, Speed, Positioning, Locality, Relationality, Authoritarianism, Parasite). Each of the topics was attributed a colour and the source material is highlighted accordingly.Furthermore, each remix has a dispersed editors' note, wherein each editor reflects in more detail on the program, how it connects to the conference's topic and how it might answer any of the aforementioned questions.
MULTIFILE
Standard SARS-CoV-2 testing protocols using nasopharyngeal/throat (NP/T) swabs are invasive and require trained medical staff for reliable sampling. In addition, it has been shown that PCR is more sensitive as compared to antigen-based tests. Here we describe the analytical and clinical evaluation of our in-house RNA extraction-free saliva-based molecular assay for the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Analytical sensitivity of the test was equal to the sensitivity obtained in other Dutch diagnostic laboratories that process NP/T swabs. In this study, 955 individuals participated and provided NP/T swabs for routine molecular analysis (with RNA extraction) and saliva for comparison. Our RT-qPCR resulted in a sensitivity of 82,86% and a specificity of 98,94% compared to the gold standard. A false-negative ratio of 1,9% was found. The SARS-CoV-2 detection workflow described here enables easy, economical, and reliable saliva processing, useful for repeated testing of individuals.
LINK
Playful Mapping is the result of many years of joint enterprise in which we, as authors, devel-oped a close intellectual collaboration. As a book, it emerged towards the end of the ERC project Charting the Digital that ran from 2011-2016, and during a still-ongoing Erasmus+ project; Go Go Gozo. Over this five year period, members of the Playful Mapping Collective got to know each other as colleagues and friends, participating regularly in diverse academic and social activities, such as conference panels and workshops.1 The authorship of this book therefore reflects an interesting collaborative experiment, enrolling researchers who have been working together in an active way over the past half-decade. This preface explains the genealogy of the emerging and open collaboration through which we developed ideas
DOCUMENT
Designing for interactivity for audience engagement in journalistic narratives is a new practice that emerged after The New York Times’ success with Snow Fall in 2012. Journalists have begun collaborating with designers in interdisciplinary teams to design these interactive narratives. Few studies describe the new practice that is the result of this collaboration. In this study, we examine the production processes of three journalistic interactive narratives and their design for audience engagement by focusing on the imagined user as part of the production process. Our analysis shows how producers develop the role of users by considering the narrative’s experience and accessibility. Together, these two concepts underpin the practice of designing for audience engagement and subsequent entextualisation. Our findings show that, although producers claim that they approach users differently when designing texts for interactive audience engagement, their concepts of the interactive user are grounded in more traditional notions of authorship and audience in journalistic practices.
LINK
