Везде
Collaboration in science: philosophical and methodological problems
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Collaboration in science: philosophical and methodological problems
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000617-8-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Vitaly S. Pronskikh 
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 4
Pages
112-116
Abstract
The article provides a brief overview of the philosophical and methodological problems of modern collaborative research. Collaborations - distributed organizations with variable membership, consisting of a large number (sometimes several thousand) of participants - are common in experimental high-energy physics studying microcosm objects, elementary particles arising in collisions of beams of accelerated particles and nuclei at collider accelerators, as well as in biomedicine and climatology. The central issues are authorship, epistemic ownership and dependence in collaborations, the division of epistemic labor in interdisciplinary research, as well as related issues of scientific organization - peer review and distribution of credit in a team. Formally, the author, conceived as a list of persons appearing as authors of a collaborative scientific work, seems to be defined by the specific participants of the collaboration core, i.e., is a construct. However, the question can also be understood as "What does it mean to be the author of a scientific work?", and then the answer becomes much less certain. Authorship of thousand-people articles is justified psychologically as the desire for regular performance of a ritual, which allows demonstrating joint belonging to a certain tradition, such as a long experiment, affiliation with the “workshop” of scientists studying phenomena of the microworld, which allows scientists, despite of their daily preoccupation with technical routines, to distinguish themselves from non-epistemic communities (engineers, technicians). However, specific rules that determine exactly who and why are worthy of being included as co-authors have been undergoing changes in recent years. In addition to theoretical significance, many of the problems discussed are related to actual practical issues of scientometry and the organization of scientific research, and therefore approaches to their solution can be directly embodied in scientific policy.
Keywords
collaboration, authroship, division of epistemic labor, credit
Date of publication
01.12.2020
Number of purchasers
11
Views
409
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Galison, P. “Kollektivnyy avtor” [The Collective Author], Voprosy filosofii, 2018, no. 5, pp. 93‒113. (In Russian)
    2. 

  2. Kasavin, I.T. “Interaktivnye zony: k predystorii nauchnoĭ laboratorii” [Interactive zones: towards the prehistory of scientific laboratory], Vestnik Rossiĭskoĭ akademii nauk, 2014, vol. 84, no 12, pp. 1098‒1106. (In Russian)
    3. 

  3. Pronskikh, V.S. “Struktura i evolyuciya eksperimenta proto-megasajens kak zony obmena: social’no-istoricheskij aspect” [Structure and Evolution of Proto-Megascience Experiment as a Trading Zone: Social-Historical Aspects], Filosofiya nauki, 2018, vol. 4, no. 79, pp. 68‒96. (In Russian)
    4. 

  4. Pruzhinin, B. I. “‘Kollektivnyi sub”ekt’ v nauchnoi traditsii (filosofsko-metodologicheskie zametki)” [“Collective Subject” in Scientific Tradition (PhilosophicalMethodological Notes)], Gumanitarnye issledovaniya v vostochnoi sibiri i na dal’nem vostoke, 2019, vol. 2, no. 48, pp. 105‒110. (In Russian)
    5. 

  5. Staley, K. The Evidence for the Top Quark: Objectivity and Bias in Collaborative Experimentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004, 360 pp.
    6. 

  6. Storozhuk, A. Yu. “Faktory ehvolyutsii ehksperimentalnykh ehpistemologicheskikh standartov” [Factors of Evolution of Experimental Epistemological Standards], Filosofiya nauki, 2016, vol. 4, no. 71, pp. 57‒66. (In Russian)
    7. 

  7. Wagenknecht S. “Opaque and Translucent Epistemic Dependencein Collaborative Scientific Practice”, Episteme, 2014, vol. 11, pp. 475‒492.
    8. 

  8. Winsberg, E., Huebner B., and Kukla R. “Accountability, Values, and Social Modeling in Radically Collaborative Research”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science: Part A, 2014, vol. 46, pp. 16‒23.
    9. 

  9. Wray, K. “Scientific Authorship in the Age of Collaborative Research”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science: Part A, 2006, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 505‒514.
    10.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate