Davenport, E.; Cronin, B.: Who dunnit? : Metatags and hyperauthorship (2001)
0.01
0.012209069 = sum of:
0.007814543 = product of:
0.06251635 = sum of:
0.06251635 = weight(_text_:authors in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.06251635 = score(doc=6031,freq=2.0), product of:
0.17731223 = queryWeight, product of:
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.038894374 = queryNorm
0.35257778 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
2.0 = termFreq=2.0
4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.125 = coord(1/8)
0.004394525 = product of:
0.00878905 = sum of:
0.00878905 = weight(_text_:e in 6031) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
0.00878905 = score(doc=6031,freq=4.0), product of:
0.055905603 = queryWeight, product of:
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.038894374 = queryNorm
0.15721233 = fieldWeight in 6031, product of:
2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
4.0 = termFreq=4.0
1.43737 = idf(docFreq=28552, maxDocs=44218)
0.0546875 = fieldNorm(doc=6031)
0.5 = coord(1/2)
- Abstract
- Multiple authorship is a topic of growing concern in a number of scientific domains. When, as is increasingly common, scholarly articles and clinical reports have scores or even hundreds of authors-what Cronin (in press) has termed "hyperauthorship" -the precise nature of each individual's contribution is often masked. A notation that describes collaborators' contributions and allows those contributions to be tracked in, and across, texts (and over time) offers a solution. Such a notation should be useful, easy to use, and acceptable to communities of scientists. Drawing on earlier work, we present a proposal for an XML-like "contribution" mark-up, and discuss the potential benefits and possible drawbacks
- Language
- e
