|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||
| Home | research | methodology | publication guide |
|
The Brain Dynamics Centre - Brain Resource International Database Publication Guide
The Brain Resource International Database the Brain Dynamics Centre policy on papers for publication using the Brain Resource International Database Authorship Guidelines: The the Brain Dynamics Centre guidelines for authorship are based on those of the American Psychiatry and Psychological Associations, as listed in Appendix 1: Submission of paper proposals Proposals for new papers are submitted in the first instance to Evian Gordon at BrainNet@brainresource.com. Please make the topic clear in the subject heading (eg. Smith: Paper Proposal, working memory ERPs). The proposal should include: · Hypothesis(es) to be tested · Data to be used · Time line for submission In the role of research coordinator, Lea Williams will forward paper proposals to the key contact person for the relevant research domain (Appendix 2), who will coordinate circulation to potential contributors. Of course, the list of key contact people may be updated at regular intervals as new domains develop. Submission of data requests Please submit requests for new datasets (in relation
to proposed papers) to BrainNet@brainresource.
Please make the topic of request clear in the subject heading Paper circulation and Timeline · Upon ‘green light’ to proceed with the paper, it is expected that the paper be submitted to the relevant journal within a 6-month period, or the data and principal authorship may pass to the next most appropriate person to ensure completion of the project. · Within 4 months: The principal author (PA) is expected to circulate a draft paper to relevant co-authors for their input, within 4 months of receiving the data. ·
Within 4 weeks: It is the responsibility of co-authors
to provide feedback to the PI within 4 weeks at the very latest. ·
Within 8 weeks: It is the responsibility of the PA to submit
the final version of the paper (with feedback incorporated) within a further
4 weeks (ie. within 8 weeks of initial circulation
of the draft). · The final version of the paper is at the discretion of the PI (as is the journal to which the paper is submitted – although hopefully PI’s will consider the importance of speed for these first publications when making that decision).
We suggest that the first papers to come out of the Brain Resource™ International Database should focus on very specific hypotheses, with the longer-term goal of extending the focus to more integrative and multi-modal papers. There is a combinatorial explosion of possible publications and your suggestions for future papers would be most welcome (especially very focused, explicit and directional hypotheses). Acknowledgements to the Brain Dynamics Centre · The principal author (PA) should first consider whether there are any appropriate the Brain Dynamics Centre co-authors that should be involved, in addition to other co-authors. ·
Acknowledgements for access to data should read: · In papers or conference abstracts, acknowledgements may be incorporated into the text (eg. … data were acquired with the support of the Brain Resource International Database; www.brainresource.com). · Ackknowledgements are included in addition to the affiliations of authors
Conference Abstracts
Appendix 1: Authorship Guidelines (based on APA) (a) Researchers take responsibility and authorship credit, only for papers for which they have actually undertaken the research, and/or to which they have contributed significant intellectual development (including contributions to write-up of the paper). Authorship credit should be based on substantial contributions to 1) conception and design or analysis and interpretation of data, and 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, and on 3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met. Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or the collection of data does not necessarily justify authorship. General supervision of the research group would also not meet these criteria, but it would do so when coupled with substantial intellectual input. Any part of an article critical to its main conclusions must be the responsibility of at least one author (usually the first/principal author). Others contributing to the work should be recognized in an Acknowledgment. (b) Principal authorship and other publication credits accurately reflect the relative scientific or professional contributions of the individuals involved, regardless of their relative status. Mere possession of an institutional position, such as head of the research team of department, does not justify authorship credit. Minor contributions to the research or to the writing for publications (such as editorial comment, proof-reading) are appropriately acknowledged, such as in footnotes or in an introductory statement. (c) The principal author would usually be the person responsible for the key intellectual input (the initiator of the study and hypotheses) and for the write-up of the paper. Second, third etc authorship would normally reflect contributions/substantial comments to the paper, as well as substantial contributions to data analysis. (d) A student is usually listed as principal author on any multiple-authored article that is substantially based on the student's research thesis, and where the paper reflects their independent intellectual input. In cases where the research supervisor also has significant intellectual input, this would be reflected in senior (last) authorship for neuroscience and medical journals (in other fields, it may be as second author).
|
|
||||||||
