References
- 1 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers,” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 16, no. 2 (2016): 97–122, DOI: 10.1080/08989621.2015.1047927 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 2 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective,” Science and Engineering Ethics 22 (2016): 1457–1472, DOI: 10.1007/s11948-015-9716-3 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 3 Elise Smith and Bryn Williams-Jones, “Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: A review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies,” Science and Engineering Ethics 18, no. 1 (2012): 199–212, DOI: 10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 4 Yue Zhang, “Authorship: an engine for research, and a guarantee of quality of publication and currency for career development,” Current Synthetic Systems Biology 2 (2013): 1, DOI: 10.4172/2332-0737.1000e101 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 5 Martin Caon, “Multiple authorship of scientific manuscripts,” Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine 40 (2017): 7–9, DOI: 10.1007/s13246-016-0516-0 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
6
The Royal Society,
“Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century,” Policy Document, The Royal Society, London, UK, (2011): 15,https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/knowledge-networks-nations/report/ (accessed 4 February 2021). -
7
RREE (Resources for Research
Ethics Education) (2012),
http://research-ethics.net/topics/collaboration/ (accessed 30 January 2021). - 8 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers,”; Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts,”.
-
9
Catherine
L.
Fisk, “Credit where
it’s due: the law and norms of attribution,”
Georgetown Law Journal
1 (2006):
49–118,
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/faculty_scholarship/1321/ (accessed 4 February 2021). - 10 Nature Editorial, “Who is accountable?” Nature 450, no. 7166 (2007): 1, DOI: 10.1038/450001a (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
11
Ana
Marušić,
Lana
Bošnjak and
Ana
Jerončić, “A
systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of
authorship across scholarly disciplines,”
PLoS ONE
6, no. 9 (2011):
e23477 , DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023477 (accessed 4 February 2021). -
12
Jane
C.
Ginsburg, “The concept
of authorship in comparative copyright law,”
DePaul Law Review
52, no. 4 (2003):
1063–1092,
https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol52/iss4/3/ (accessed 4 February 2021). -
13
Sandeep
B.
Bavdekar, “Authorship
issues,”
Lung India
29, no. 1 (2012):
76–80, DOI: 10.4103/0970-2113.92371 (accessed 4 February 2021);
Alastair
Matheson, “The ICMJE recommendations
and pharmaceutical marketing – strengths, weaknesses and the unsolved
problem of attribution in publication ethics,” BMC Medical
Ethics 17 (2016): 20, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0103-7 (accessed 4 February 2021); Angela Stocks, Donna Simcoe, Dikran Toroser and Lisa DeTora, “Substantial contribution and accountability: best authorship practices for medical writers in biomedical publications,” Current Medical Research and Opinion 34, no. 6 (2018): 1163–1168, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2018.1451832 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 14 Bavdekar, “Authorship issues”; Philip Greenland and Phil B. Fontanarosa, “Ending honorary authorship,” Science 337, no. 6098 (2012): 1019, DOI: 10.1126/science.1224988 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
15
Seymore,
“How does my work become our
work?”;
Rebecca
Tushnet, “Naming rights: attribution
and law,” Utah Law Review
3 (2007):
781–814,
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1034341 (accessed 4 February 2021); Jorge L. Contreras, “Confronting the crisis in scientific publishing: latency, licensing and access,” PIJIP Research Paper no. 2012–11 (2012), American University Washington College of Law, Washington, D.C.,http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=research (accessed 4 February 2021); Peter B. Hirtle, “Author addenda: an examination of five alternatives,” Cornell University Library D-Lib Magazine 12, no. 11 (2006),http://www.dlib.org/dlib/november06/hirtle/11hirtle.html (accessed 4 February 2021). -
16
Jaime A.
Teixeira
da Silva and
Judit
Dobránszki, “How
authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM
publishers,”;
Teja
Tscharntke,
Michael E.
Hochberg, Tatyana
A.
Rand, Vincent
H.
Resh and
Jochen
Krauss, “Author sequence and credit
for contributions in multiauthored publications,” PLoS
Biology
5, no. 1 (2007):
e18 , DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0050018 (accessed 4 February 2021); Jason W. Osborne and Abigail Holland, “What is authorship, and what should it be? A survey of prominent guidelines for determining authorship in scientific publications,” Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation 14 (2009): 2,https://scholarworks.umass.edu/pare/vol14/iss1/15/ (accessed 4 February 2021); Stephanie Suhr, “Science communication in a changing world,” Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics 9 (2009): 1–4, DOI:https://doi.org/10.3354/esep00102 (accessed 4 February 2021); Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, Phan T. Van, “Ethics of authorship: survey among plant scientists,” The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 5, no. 1 (2011): 85–89,http://www.globalsciencebooks.info/Online/GSBOnline/images/2011/AAJPSB_5(1)/AAJPSB_5(1)85-89o.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021); Mildred Cho and Martha McKee, “Authorship in biomedical research: realities and expectations. Science’s next wave,” Science (2002),https://www.sciencemag.org/careers/2002/03/authorship-biomedical-research-realities-and-expectations (accessed 4 February 2021). - 17 Stephanie Ngai, Jennifer L. Gold, Sudeep S. Gill and Paula A. Rochon, “Haunted manuscripts: Ghost authorship in the medical literature,” Accountability in Research 12, no. 2 (2005): 103–114, DOI: 10.1080/08989620590957175 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 18 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “Paper mills and on-demand publishing: Risks to the integrity of journal indexing and metrics,” Medical Journal Armed Forces India 77, no. 1 (2020): 119–120, DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2020.08.003 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 19 Lisa A. Harvey, “Gift, honorary or guest authorship,” Spinal Cord 56 (2018): 91, DOI: 10.1038/s41393-017-0057-8 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
20
Joseph
S.
Wislar,
Annette
Flanagin, Phil
B.
Fontanarosa and
Catherine D.
DeAngelis, “Honorary
and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional
survey,”
British Medical Journal
343 (2011):
d6128 , DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d6128 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 21 Bruce Macfarlane, “The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy,” Studies in Higher Education 42, no. 7 (2017): 1194–1210, DOI: 10.1080/03075079.2015.1085009 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 22 Lance S. Kwok, “The white bull effect: abusive co-authorship and publication parasitism,” Journal of Medical Ethics 31, no. 9 (2005): 554–556, DOI: 10.1136/jme.2004.010553 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
23
T.
Prabhakar
Clement, “Authorship
matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and
responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles,”
Science and Engineering Ethics
20, no. 2 (2014):
345–361, DOI: 10.1007/s11948-013-9454-3 (accessed 4 February 2021);
Amy
Brand,
Liz
Allen,
Micah
Altman,
Marjorie
Hlava and
Jo
Scott, “Beyond authorship:
attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit,” Learned
Publishing 28, no. 2 (2015): 151–155, DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1087/20150211 (accessed 4 February 2021); Jian Xu, Ying Ding, Min Song and Tamy Chambers, “Author credit-assignment schemas: A comparison and analysis,” Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 67, no. 8 (2016): 1973–1989, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23495 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 24 Gert Helgesson and Stefan Eriksson, “Authorship order,” Learned Publishing 32, no. 2 (2019): 106–112, DOI: 10.1002/leap.1191 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 25 Gert Helgesson, Niklas Juth, Josephine Schneider, Michael Lövtrup and Niels Lynøe, “Misuse of co-authorship in medical theses in Sweden,” Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13, no. 4 (2018): 402–411, DOI: 10.1177/1556264618784206 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 26 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers,”; Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts,”.
- 27 Jane C. Ginsburg, “The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law,”; Seymore, “How does my work become our work? Dilution of authorship in scientific papers, and the need for the academy to obey copyright law,”.
-
28
Sigmar de
Mello
Rode, Pedro
Rogério Camargos
Pennisi, Thiago
Leite
Beaini, Janaina
Paiva
Curi, Sérgio
Vitorino
Cardoso and Luiz
Renato
Paranhos, “Authorship,
plagiarism, and copyright transfer in the scientific
universe,”
Clinics (São Paulo, Brazil)
74 (2019):
e1312 , DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2019/e1312 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 29 Ginsburg, “The concept of authorship in comparative copyright law,”.
- 30 Sara R. Benson, ““I own it, don’t I?” The rules of academic copyright ownership and you,” College & Undergraduate Libraries 25, no. 4 (2018): 317–327, DOI: 10.1080/10691316.2018.1533201 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 31 Mark Davies, “Academic freedom: a lawyer’s perspective,” Higher Education 70, no. 6 (2015): 987–1002, DOI: 10.1007/s10734-015-9884-8 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 32 Mark Davies, “Academic freedom: a lawyer’s perspective,”.
- 33 Sara R. Benson, ““I own it, don’t I?” The rules of academic copyright ownership and you,”.
- 34 Nature Editorial, “Don’t pay prizes for published science,” Nature 547, no. 137 (2017), DOI: 10.1038/547137a (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 35 Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets, “RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements,” Learned Publishing 16, no. 4 (2003): 293–308, DOI: 10.1087/095315103322422053 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
36
Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886),
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/text.jsp?file_id=283698#P85_10661 (accessed 4 February 2021). -
37
“Chapter 2:
Copyright Ownership and Transfer,” U.S. Copyright
Office,
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap2.html (accessed 4 February 2021);https://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter2.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). -
38
Graeme
B.
Dinwoodie, “Conflicts
and international copyright litigation: the role of international
norms,” (2005),
http://www.kentlaw.edu/depts/ipp/publications/MaxPlanck2004-05.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). - 39 Stephen Fishman, The Copyright Handbook: What Every Writer Needs to Know, (Berkeley, California: Nolo, 2020), Chapter 1, 3–11.
-
40
Graeme
B.
Dinwoodie, “Conflicts
and international copyright litigation: the role of international
norms,”;
Shyamkrishna
Balganesh, “Foreseeability and
copyright incentives,” Harvard Law Review
122, no. 6 (2009):
1569–1633,
https://ssrn.com/abstract=1117655 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 41 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).
-
42
Orrin
G.
Hatch, “Better late
than never: implementation of the 1886 Berne
Convention,”
Cornell International Law Journal
22, no. 2 (1989): article
1 ,http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol22/iss2/1 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 43 Graeme B. Dinwoodie, “Conflicts and international copyright litigation: the role of international norms,”.
-
44
Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(1886); R. Anthony
Reese, “Copyrightable subject matter
in the next great copyright act,” Berkeley Technology Law
Journal 29 (2015): 1489–1533,
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese_copyrightable_next_act.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). -
45
Copyright House Limited
(2021). List of Berne Convention
signatories.
https://copyrighthouse.org/countries-berne-convention/ (accessed 4 February 2021). - 46 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).
- 47 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).
-
48
Sandip
H.
Patel, “Graduate
students’ ownership and attribution rights in intellectual
property,”
Indiana Law Journal
71, no. 2 (1996): article
7 ,https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol71/iss2/7/ (accessed 4 February 2021). - 49 Catherine L. Fisk, “Credit where it’s due: the law and norms of attribution,”.
- 50 John Willinsky, “Copyright contradictions in scholarly publishing,” First Monday 7, no. 11 (2002), DOI: 10.5210/fm.v7i11.1006 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
51
“Understanding publishing agreements,” The University of Melbourne (2021),https://copyright.unimelb.edu.au/information/copyright-and-research/understanding-publishing-agreements (accessed 4 February 2021). -
52
Jessica
D.
Litman, “Copyright,
compromise and legislative history,”
Cornell Law Review
72 (1987):
857–904,
https://repository.law.umich.edu/articles/224 (accessed 4 February 2021); Kathleen M. Bragg, “The termination of transfers provision of the 1976 Copyright Act: Is it time to alienate it or amend it?” Pepperdine Law Review 27, no. 4 (2000): article 8,https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol27/iss4/8 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 53 Mehdi Dadkhah, Tomasz Maliszewski and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics,” Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology 12, no. 3 (2016): 353–362, DOI: 10.1007/s12024-016-9785-x (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 54 Arnold S. Relman, “The Ingelfinger rule,” New England Journal of Medicine 305 (1981): 824–826, DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198110013051408 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 55 Elizabeth Gadd, Charles Oppenheim and Steve Probets, “RoMEO studies 4: An analysis of journal publishers’ copyright agreements,”.
-
56
Asian Journal of
Surgery, (2021), Copyright Transfer Agreement,
https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/asjsur_ctaa.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). -
57
“FTC charges academic journal publisher OMICS Group deceived researchers,” Federal Trade Commission, 2016,https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/08/ftc-charges-academic-journal-publisher-omics-group-deceived (accessed 4 February 2021); Stewart Manley, “On the limitations of recent lawsuits against Sci-Hub, OMICS, ResearchGate, and Georgia State University,” Learned Publishing 32, no. 4 (2019): 375–381, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1254 (accessed 4 February 2021); Stewart Manley, “Predatory journals on trial: allegations, responses, and lessons for scholarly publishing from FTC v. OMICS,” Journal of Scholarly Publishing 50, no. 3 (2019): 183–200, DOI:https://doi.org/10.3138/jsp.50.3.02 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 58 Aceil Al-Khatib, “Protecting authors from predatory journals and publishers,” Publishing Research Quarterly 32, no. 4 (2016): 281–285, DOI: 10.1007/s12109-016-9474-3 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 59 Remedios Melero, Mikael Laakso and Miguel Navas-Fernández, “Openness of Spanish scholarly journals as measured by access and rights,” Learned Publishing 30, no. 2 (2017): 143–155, DOI: 10.1002/leap.1095 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 60 Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886).
-
61
Berne Convention for the
Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
(1886); R. Anthony
Reese, “How much is too much?
Campbell and the third fair use factor,” Washington Law
Review 90 (2015): 755–813,
http://www.law.uci.edu/faculty/full-time/reese/reese-campbell-fair-use.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). -
62
Scientific Reports,
(2021), License agreement and author copyright,
https://www.nature.com/srep/journal-policies/editorial-policies#license-agreement (accessed 4 February 2021). -
63
David
P.
Hayes, “One page guide
to copyright,”
2011,
http://chart.copyrightdata.com/OnePageGuide.html (accessed 4 February 2021); Peter B. Hirtle, “Copyright term and the public domain in the United States,” 2020,https://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm (accessed 4 February 2021). - 64 Peter B. Hirtle, “Author addenda: an examination of five alternatives,”.
- 65 Peter B. Hirtle, “Author addenda: an examination of five alternatives,”.
-
66
Benjamin
J.
Keele, “Copyright
provisions in law journal publication agreements,”
Law Library Journal
102, no. 2 (2010):
269–283,
https://scholarworks.iupui.edu/handle/1805/3328 (accessed 4 February 2021). -
67
Jaime A.
Teixeira
da Silva and
Judit
Dobránszki, “How
authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM
publishers,”; “Defining the role of authors and
contributors”, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE),
2021,
http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html (accessed 4 February 2021). - 68 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “The ICMJE recommendations: challenges in fortifying publishing integrity,” Irish Journal of Medical Science 189, no. 4 (2020): 1179–1181, DOI: 10.1007/s11845-020-02227-1 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 69 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers,”.
- 70 Patricia H. Dawson and Sharon Q. Yang, “Institutional repositories, open access and copyright: what are the practices and implications?” Science & Technology Libraries 35, no. 4 (2016): 279–294, DOI: 10.1080/0194262X.2016.1224994 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 71 “Chapter 2: Copyright Ownership and Transfer,” U.S. Copyright Office.
- 72 “Chapter 2: Copyright Ownership and Transfer,” U.S. Copyright Office.
-
73
Michael
B.
Landau, “Joint works
under United States copyright law: Judicial legislation through statutory
misinterpretation,”
Idea
54, no. 2 (2014):
157–224,
https://readingroom.law.gsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1793&context=faculty_pub (accessed 4 February 2021). - 74 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers,”; Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts,”.
-
75
Jaime A.
Teixeira
da Silva and
Judit
Dobránszki, “The
authorship of deceased scientists and their posthumous
responsibilities,”
Science Editor
38, no. 3/4 (2015):
98–100,
https://www.csescienceeditor.org/article/the-authorship-of-deceased-scientists-and-their-posthumous-responsibilities/ (accessed 4 February 2021). - 76 Aceil Al-Khatib and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “What rights do authors have?,” Science and Engineering Ethics 23, no. 3 (2017): 947–949, DOI: 10.1007/s11948-016-9808-8 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 77 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “Should copyright be transferred before a manuscript is accepted?,” Annals of Translational Medicine 5, no. 20 (2017): 415, DOI: 10.21037/atm.2017.07.39 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
78
“Chapter 1: Subject
Matter and Scope of Copyright,” U.S. Copyright Office,
https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html (accessed 4 February 2021);https://www.copyright.gov/title17/chapter1.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). - 79 Robert K. Welsh, Craig R. Lareau, Jeanne K. Clevenger and Mark A. Reger, “Ethical and legal considerations regarding disputed authorship with the use of shared data,” Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 15, no. 2 (2008): 105–131, DOI: 10.1080/08989620801946925 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 80 Catherine L. Fisk, “Credit where it’s due: the law and norms of attribution,”.
-
81
Michael
Hanna,
“Authorship,” in How to Write Better Medical Papers, (Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, 2019), 239–243, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-02955-5_47 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 82 Aceil Al-Khatib and Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “Is biomedical research protected from predatory reviewers?,” Science and Engineering Ethics 25, no. 1 (2019): 293–321, DOI: 10.1007/s11948-017-9964-5 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
83
Syed
Shahabuddin,
“Plagiarism in academia,”
International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher
Education
21, no. 3 (2009):
353–359,
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ909069 (accessed 4 February 2021); Seung-Kee Min, “Plagiarism in medical scientific research: Can continuing education and alarming prevent this misconduct?” Vascular Specialist International 36, no. 2 (2020): 53–56, DOI: 10.5758/vsi.203621 (accessed 4 February 2021). -
84
“What constitutes
authorship? COPE discussion Document,”
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Council,
2014,
http://publicationethics.org/files/Authorship_DiscussionDocument.pdf (accessed 4 February 2021). -
85
COPE Digest: Publication
Ethics in Practice. June
2014 (Vol. 2, Issue 6).
http://publicationethics.org/cope-newsletter/2014/jun/cope-digest-publication-ethics-practice-june-2014-vol-2-issue-6 (accessed 4 February 2021). - 86 Julia Fedotova and Lucian Hritcu. “RETRACTED: Testosterone promotes anxiolytic-like behavior in gonadectomized male rats via blockade of the 5-HT1A receptors,” General and Comparative Endocrinology 254 (2017): 14–21, DOI: 10.1016/j.ygcen.2017.09.006 (accessed 4 February 2021).
-
87
Glenda
A.
Gertz, “Copyrights in
faculty-created works: how licensing can solve the academic work-for-hire
dilemma,”
Washington Law Review
88, no. 4 (2013):
1465–1493,
https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol88/iss4/10/ (accessed 4 February 2021). - 88 Sean B. Seymore, “How does my work become our work? Dilution of authorship in scientific papers, and the need for the academy to obey copyright law,”.
- 89 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “How authorship is defined by multiple publishing organizations and STM publishers,”; Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Judit Dobránszki, “Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts,”.
- 90 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “On the abuse of online submission systems, fake peer reviews and editor-created accounts,” Persona y Bioética 20, no. 2 (2016): 151–158, DOI: 10.5294/pebi.2016.20.2.3 (accessed 4 February 2021).
- 91 Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva, “ORCID: the challenge ahead,” European Science Editing 43, no. 2 (2017): 34, DOI: 10.20316/ESE.2017.43.004 (accessed 4 February 2021).