PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Eugen Tarnow

Publications and source records attributed to Eugen Tarnow.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Proactive interference, retroactive interference--what about self-interference? A new interpretation of the recency-primacy shift.

The recency-primacy shift (RPS) indicates that memory for early list items improves and memory for later items becomes worse as the retention interval between study and test increases. In this contribution, this puzzling experimental finding--memory improving with time--is found to be consistent with a model in which recognition is temporarily interfered with by its own storage process (self-interference). I show that this interpretation can qualitatively better account for the RPS experimental data than can the dimensional distinctiveness model, the only other outstanding explanation of the RPS. Two experimental predictions separate the 2 models: The dimensional distinctiveness model predicts no RPS for 2-item lists, in contrast to self-interference, and as the overall timescale is changed, the dimensional distinctiveness model predicts no difference in the RPS whereas self-interference predicts significant changes.

Humans↗
PubMed2004

Coauthorship in pathology, a comparison with physics and a survery-generated and member-preferred authorship guideline.

In a large and detailed survey of scientific coauthorship in pathology, 3500 members of the US and Canadian Academy of Pathology (USCAP) were surveyed via the Internet with a final response rate of 22.5%. The results were compared with a previous survey of members of the American Physical Society (APS). The fields are found to be very similar. For example, there is no well-defined way to determine coauthorship: the byline is arrived at without the use of public coauthorship standards according to 90% of respondents (92% in physics). A substantial amount of inappropriate authorship is present in both fields using a variety of authorship guidelines. For example, using the guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" [ICMJE]), the average number of coauthors judged to be inappropriate in pathology on papers with 4 coauthors is 1.0 (1.2 in physics), and using the guideline requiring "direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention," we find 1.6 (1.5 in physics). Finally, it is suggested that authorship guidelines should be constructed by public surveys rather than closed-door committees: an authorship guideline constructed from previous survey feedback (from APS members) was found to be preferable to USCAP members (it received 40% of the vote, the ICMJE received 24% of the vote).

Authorship↗
PubMed2002

Coauthorship in physics.

In a large and detailed survey on the ethics of scientific coauthorship, members of the American Physical Society (APS) were asked to judge the number of appropriate coauthors on his or her last published paper. Results show that the first or second coauthors are more appropriate than later coauthors about whom there is equal and considerable doubt. The probability of any third and subsequent coauthors being judged as inappropriate is 23% for the APS guideline, 67% for the tighter guideline of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 59% if the guideline requires "direct contributions to scientific discovery or invention". Only 3% of respondents report having personally rejected an undeserving scientist who expected to be an author on the last published paper. Respondents seem to be divided into two non-overlapping populations--those who report no inappropriate coauthorship and those who have a more graduated view.

Authorship↗