Synthese (1):1-12 (2012)

Jesus Pedro Zamora Bonilla
National Distance Education University
Co-authorship of papers is very common in most areas of science, and it has increased as the complexity of research has strengthened the need for scientific collaboration. But the fact that papers have more than an author tends to complicate the attribution of merit to individual scientists. I argue that collaboration does not necessarily entail co-authorship, but that in many cases the latter is an option that individual authors might not choose, at least in principle: each author might publish in a separate way her own contribution to the collaborative project in which she has taken part, or papers could explicitly state what the contribution of each individual author has been. I ask, hence, why it is that scientists prefer to ‘pool’ their contributions instead of keeping them separate, if what they pursue in their professional careers (besides epistemic goals) is individual recognition. My answer is based on the view of the scientific paper as a piece of argumentation, following an inferentialist approach to scientific knowledge. A few empirical predictions from the model presented here are suggested in the conclusions
Keywords Co-authorship  Scientific collaboration  Reputation  Social epistemology  Inferentialism  Institutions  intellectual property  Argumentation
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-012-0238-0
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,489
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

Making It Explicit.Isaac Levi & Robert B. Brandom - 1996 - Journal of Philosophy 93 (3):145.
The Epistemic Significance of Collaborative Research.K. Brad Wray - 2002 - Philosophy of Science 69 (1):150-168.

View all 14 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

What Should Be the Data Sharing Policy of Cognitive Science?Mark A. Pitt & Yun Tang - 2013 - Topics in Cognitive Science 5 (1):214-221.
Explanation and Modelization in a Comprehensive Inferential Account.Donato-Rodríguez Xavieder & Zamora-Bonilla Jesús - 2009 - In Henk W. de Regt, Stephan Hartmann & Okasha Samir (eds.), EPSA Philosophy of Science: Amsterdam 2009.


Added to PP index

Total views
26 ( #441,687 of 2,520,788 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #405,623 of 2,520,788 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes