Curzer(Curzer,H.J.2021年。作者和正义:信用和责任,研究28:1-22中的问责制)从各种哲学角度针对ICMJE作者标准构建了令人信服的重要论据。这里,我们对Curzer的观点提出了不同的意见,主要是从生物医学科学的角度(ICMJE作者标准最初是针对该科学的)。我们既不能识别也不同意Curzer关于当代生物医学科学出版物中作家和研究人员之间“脱节”的观点,或者在智力和非智力贡献者应该得到平等认可的概念中看到明确的价值。此外,我们注意到结果主义关于效用的论点,罗尔斯正义,以及康德道义论都不同意ICMJE标准。简而言之,虽然我们发现Curzer的论点是参与者或以人为中心的,这些都不符合哲学或科学实践。我们假设ICMJE作者标准的关键概念,在这种情况下,作者身份需要知识信用与责任的结合,应该仍然是科学研究实践的基石。
Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility,
Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer\'s points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer\'s opinion of a \"disconnect\" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer\'s arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to
accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.