Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The Contributor Roles Ontology is an extension of the CRediT taxonomy into more specific roles. [30] An extension for clinical trials (CRediT-RCT) has been proposed. [31] Other taxonomies have been created that may be more suitable to other fields, such as the Taxonomy of Digital Research Activities in the Humanities (TaDiRAH). [32]
In 2012, several major academic and scientific publishing bodies mounted Project CRediT to develop a controlled vocabulary of contributor roles. [18] Known as CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy), this is an example of a flat, non-hierarchical taxonomy; however, it does include an optional, broad classification of the degree of contribution ...
You are free: to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work; to remix – to adapt the work; Under the following conditions: attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
From the late 17th century to the 1920s, sole authorship was the norm, and the one-paper-one-author model worked well for distributing credit. [15] Today, shared authorship is common in most academic disciplines, [ 16 ] [ 17 ] with the exception of the humanities, where sole authorship is still the predominant model.
Main page; Contents; Current events; Random article; About Wikipedia; Contact us
Crossref is a nonprofit association of approximately 19,000 voting members made up of 6,000 societies and publishers, including both commercial and nonprofit organizations, 6,500 academic and research institutions, research funders, museums, repositories, government agencies and NGOs.
A Taxonomy of Knowledge Gaps for Wikimedia Projects (Summary and Motivation) Image title: Author: Software used: LaTeX with acmart 2020/04/30 v1.71 Typesetting articles for the Association for Computing Machinery and hyperref 2019/11/10 v7.00c Hypertext links for LaTeX: Conversion program: pdfTeX-1.40.20: Encrypted: no: Page size: 486 x 720 pts ...
1. Because the author clearly demonstrated the "good cause" required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, and because there was no reason to believe that the author was acting in bad faith or was misrepresenting his reasons for asking for the extension, the district court abused its discretion in denying the author's timely motion for an extension. 2.