Use my Search Websuite to scan PubMed, PMCentral, Journal Hosts and Journal Archives, FullText. Kick-your-searchterm to multiple Engines kick-your-query now !>

A dictionary by aggregated review articles of nephrology, medicine and the life sciences Your one-stop-run pathway from word to the immediate pdf of peer-reviewed on-topic knowledge.

10.5455/aim.2018.26.4-9 http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/10.5455/aim.2018.26.4-9 C5869232!5869232!29719305     free     free     free Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=29719305&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534 Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 211.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534       Acta+Inform+Med 2018 ; 26 (1): 4-9 Nephropedia Template TP {{tp|p=29719305|t=2018. The Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It |pdf=|usr=}}{{29719305}} gab.com Text The Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It JO: Acta Inform Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29719305 #FOAvip Aim:: Aim of article was to evaluate knowledge and practice of authorship issues among the academic population in the medical field. Material and methods:: Article has an analytical character and includes 69 academic workers (from the medical field, with the status of a regular employee of the Faculty of Medicine or a professional associate) who responded to the survey. Results:: Within the total number of respondents in the study, 34.8% of them were added as coauthors, although they did not have any input in the writing process. Even 47.8% of the respondents were under psychological pressure, that they have to add their superiors to the list of authors, though they did not have any contribution at any stage of the article preparation, while 29% of the respondents had a tacit agreement about mutual adding to the author?s list, and 36.2% added their superiors to the author?s list, in order that the first author would get a permission to publish the article in a certain journal. Conclusion:: The relationship between the author, the mentor, the data processing person, the person providing the moral support etc. must be established, and not all of them has a place in the list of authors, they should be given special places at the end of the article, a space for acknowledgments, where these people may be mentioned. The consciousness of the academic community must change for the purpose of the concrete progress of the academic community and the scientific contributions of its members. Twit Text FOAVip The Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It ????Acta Inform Med http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29719305 #FOAvip Twit Text # Free Paper on # # # # # LINK http://www.kidney.de/pget.php?&tw=1&pmid=29719305 #FOAvip English Wikipedia <ref>{{Cite pmid|29719305}}</ref> The Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It #MMPMID29719305 Masic I Acta Inform Med 2018[]; 26 (1): 4-9 PMID29719305show ga Aim:: Aim of article was to evaluate knowledge and practice of authorship issues among the academic population in the medical field. Material and methods:: Article has an analytical character and includes 69 academic workers (from the medical field, with the status of a regular employee of the Faculty of Medicine or a professional associate) who responded to the survey. Results:: Within the total number of respondents in the study, 34.8% of them were added as coauthors, although they did not have any input in the writing process. Even 47.8% of the respondents were under psychological pressure, that they have to add their superiors to the list of authors, though they did not have any contribution at any stage of the article preparation, while 29% of the respondents had a tacit agreement about mutual adding to the author?s list, and 36.2% added their superiors to the author?s list, in order that the first author would get a permission to publish the article in a certain journal. Conclusion:: The relationship between the author, the mentor, the data processing person, the person providing the moral support etc. must be established, and not all of them has a place in the list of authors, they should be given special places at the end of the article, a space for acknowledgments, where these people may be mentioned. The consciousness of the academic community must change for the purpose of the concrete progress of the academic community and the scientific contributions of its members. äThe Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community(epmc).pdf DeepDyve Pubget Overpricing