Theodore Sheskin of Cleveland State University suggests using the Analytic Hierarchy Process to determine the relative responsibility
of co-authors/contributors to a scientific paper - State Problem
- Design Experiment
- Conduct Experiment
- Analyse Data
- Write Manuscript
- Hypothesis construction
- Literature review
- Variable identification
- Method development
- Instrument design
- Data collection
- Data validation
- Result interpretation
- Draft writing
- Revise critically
- Co-author 1
- Co-author 2
- Co-author 3
Illustrative. Assumes co-authors engage in a pairwise comparison exercise using AHP intensity of preference approach, and subsequently arrive at consensus  Ratings. Illustrative. Assumes similar process to that for ratings takes place. Illustrative. Reflect Ratings and Weightings. Slide 2 shows that a much heavier weighting to Hypothesis construction would be necessary to make co-author 2 the lead, slide 3 that a much heavier weighting to Method development would be necessary to make co-author 2 the lead. Theodore J Sheskin (2006) An analytic hierarchy process model to apportion co-author responsibility Science and Engineering Ethics 12 (3): 555-565. email author: t.sheskin@csuohio.edu The purpose of presenting an Annalisa version of a study conducted using another MCDA method (such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process) is to summarise and present the analysis in a simple and attractive one-screen format for a large audience - and to permit the interested viewer to download the .alt file and interact with the Weightings and Ratings to determine the effect of changes on the Scores. Alternatively the .alt file may be used as a 'starter' for a new analysis. No opinion is expressed or implied in regard to the merits of the study on any criterion
download alt file here
|
STARTERS 
