Knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical researchers toward authorship in scientific journals (original) (raw)
Related papers
Ibnosina Journal of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, 2018
Medical research and publications are not only important for scientific development but also vital for the professional advancement and individual academic progress. Ranking is extremely important for appointments and leadership roles. Authorship is central to the credit and responsibility in medical research and appropriate assignment of authorship carries ethical, legal as well as intellectual implications. Despite being globally established for many years, deviation from the “International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)” criteria for authorship is still seen in varying orders of magnitude and in different shapes and forms. In this communication, we revisit the latest ICMJE criteria for authorship, highlight the increasingly recognized forms of potential of authorship misconduct (intentional or unintentional) and reflect on some emerging concepts and practices in authorship attribution. The target readers are primarily young and aspiring researchers who may err due t...
PLoS ONE, 2011
Background: The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate evidence about authorship issues and provide synthesis of research on authorship across all research fields. Methods: We searched bibliographical databases to identify articles describing empirical quantitive or qualitative research from all scholarly fields on different aspects of authorship. Search was limited to original articles and reviews. Results: The final sample consisted of 123 articles reporting results from 118 studies. Most studies came for biomedical and health research fields and social sciences. Study design was usually a survey (53%) or descriptive study (27%); only 2 studies used randomized design. We identified four 4 general themes common to all research disciplines: authorship perceptions, definitions and practices, defining order of authors on the byline, ethical and unethical authorship practices, and authorship issues related to student/non-research personnel-supervisor collaboration. For 14 survey studies, a meta-analysis showed a pooled weighted average of 29% (95% CI 24% to 35%) researchers reporting their own or others' experience with misuse of authorship. Authorship misuse was reported more often by researcher outside of the USA and UK: 55% (95% CI 45% to 64%) for 4 studies in France, South Africa, India and Bangladesh vs. 23% (95% CI 18% to 28%) in USA/UK or international journal settings. Interpretation: High prevalence of authorship problems may have severe impact on the integrity of the research process, just as more serious forms of research misconduct. There is a need for more methodologically rigorous studies to understand the allocation of publication credit across research disciplines.
Iranian Journal of Public Health, 2013
Background: The objective of this study was to assess the knowledge and views of faculty members on criteria for authorship by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), their current practice of choosing the authors, views on gift authorship and problems they had faced concerning authorship. Methods: It was a cross sectional survey from January 2011 to July 2011 among faculty members of various private and public sector medical institutions of Pakistan through a self-administered questionnaire. Main outcome measures included awareness and use of ICMJE criteria, which contribution to research merit authorship and their perceptions about gift authorship. Results: Two hundred eighteen faculty members (180 males, 38 females) participated in the study. One hundred twenty eight (58.7%) were from surgery and allied disciplines. Ninety six percent had published between one to five papers while 60(27.5%) had six to ten papers to their credit. One hundred eleven (50.9%) claimed they were aware about the authorship criteria, only twenty two (19.8%) could name this document. Only four (1.8%) could correctly state this. Only one hundred twenty (55.0%) said that all three criteria's must be met to be eligible for authorship. Ninety three (42.7%) said that they were not included as authors though they deserved it while sixty three said they did not merit but were still included. Forty two (19.3%) said that they were not aware when they were listed as authors. Conclusion: A vast majority of young faculty members are not aware of the existence of authorship criteria and gift authorship is quite common.
Knowledge on Ethical Authorship: A Comparative Study Between Medical And Pharmacy Faculty
Journal of Young Pharmacists, 2016
Aim: The study was aimed to assess the knowledge on understanding ethical authorship of research publications among the medical and pharmacy faculty members of India. Materials and Methods: We have selected 54 numbers of medical faculty members and 41 numbers of pharmacy faculty members from different parts of India to assess their understanding and knowledge on concept in authorship issues for ethical publication by questionnaire and telephone interview. Results: It showed a significant higher number of publications (t=3.765, p<0.001) including first authorship (t=15.34, p<0.001) among pharmacy faculty members as compared to medical faculty members. 74.07% of medical and 68.29% of pharmacy faculty members confessed that they did not have any discussion on authorship issues at anytime.88.88% of medical and 36.5% of pharmacy faculty members also mentioned that their Professors and Head of the departments were awarded 'gifted authorship'. 81.4% of medical and 29.26% of pharmacy faculty members also said that their seniors pressurized them to include their names in their manuscripts. Conclusions: Indicate a clear unethical practice on authorship issues among medical faculty members of India. Although pharmacy faculty members are better in practicing ethical authorship as compared to their medical counterparts but them too need lot of improvements on understanding ethical authorship.
Understanding of Authorship by the Post Graduate Medical Students at a Center in Bangladesh
Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics
Education on authorship was delivered and evaluated by pre test and post test questionnairen on 30 post graduate medical students at the Department of Anestheology, Dhaka Medical College, Bangladesh between January and June 2019 to understand the knowledge, skill and attitude of post graduate medical students on authorship. Result: Before intervention, majority (60%) of the students felt that who perform the research work should be the author of the article. But 40% students were divided and felt that who advised the design of the research (20%), who provided the grants (10%) and Chief/Head of the division (10%) should be the author of the article respectively. Maximum (70%) respondents did not know the order of authorship. Of 40% respondent felt that the PI should be always the first author and 40% don’t know the answer. Half of the students (50%) felt that keeping honorary author increased the opportunity of acceptance of publication. Of 36.7% and 13.3% of students felt that keepi...
Current medical research and opinion, 2018
To provide clarity on the professional medical writer as author or contributor by examining what "a substantial contribution" and "accountability" mean with respect to authorship in a biomedical publication. These terms relate to criteria 1 and 4 of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. We reviewed the ICMJE and Good Publication Practice authorship guidelines, which recommend that individuals not meeting all four authorship criteria should be acknowledged as contributors. We also surveyed and assessed selected journals for published guidance on authorship versus contributorship. We found that journals often vary in their authorship guidelines for medical writers. Notwithstanding, and to assist in determining the contribution made by the medical writer, we have expanded on current guidelines to develop recommendations for important intellectual contribution to the design of the work (developing the protocol, choosing...
Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers
BMC Medical Ethics, 2014
Background: Attitudes to, and practices of, scientific authorship vary. We have studied this variation among researchers in a university hospital and medical school in Norway. Methods: We invited all faculty, researchers and PhD students at Oslo University Hospital and the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo (approximately 2700) by e-mail to answer a web-based questionnaire in January 2013. We asked the researchers to report their authorship experiences and to score their agreement with, and ability to practice according to, 13 statements on authorship qualifications and criteria on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely agree, 5 = completely disagree). The statements were taken from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and other recommendations on authorship. Results: 654 questionnaires were returned (response rate 24%); 25% of the respondents had published less than five scientific articles, 43% five to 49, and 32% more than 50 articles. 97% reported knowledge of defined authorship criteria, and 68% regarded breaches of these as scientific misconduct. 36% had experienced pressure to include undeserved authors in their papers, more in basic science (46%) than in community medicine (25%). 29% reported that they had been denied authorship they believed they deserved. Researchers with less than six years of research experience found authorship decisions more difficult than more experienced researchers (48% vs 30%). The respondents' agreement with the statements on authorship was higher than their self-reported ability to follow them for all statements. Average scores for agreement and practice for all statements combined were 1.4 vs 2.3. The discrepancy between attitude and practice declined with publishing experience. For the core ICMJE authorship requirements the average difference between attitude and practice was 1.2 among those who had published less than 5 articles and 0.7 among those who had published 50 articles or more (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Almost all the responding researchers had knowledge of formal authorship requirements. Most of them agreed with the criteria, but found it harder to put them into practice. More experienced researchers found decisions on authorship and about the order of authors easier than less experienced researchers.
Authorship in medical research: what should authors know?
Journal of health science research, 2022
Authorship means both credit and responsibility. Authorship has several related terms that confuse researchers, especially the most junior ones. This narrative review summarizes the definition and criteria of authorship as well as types, number, order, and responsibilities of authors in the medical research. Most of the medical journals endorse the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. However, there is a disagreement about the criteria of authorship. Acknowledgments should include the names whose contributions did not qualify them for authorship. Some forms of authorship are considered acceptable, for example, group author, deceased or incapacitated authors, and co-contributors (e.g., co-first author). While, forms of inappropriate authorship include, among others, honorary author, gift author, ghost author, and guest author. Remedies for authorship misconduct are mentioned in the review.
Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2018
Honorary authorship is the inclusion of an author on an article whose contribution does not warrant authorship. We conducted an Internet-based survey among first authors publishing in Indian biomedical journals from 2012 to 2013 to study the frequency and factors associated with honorary authorship. The response rate was 27% (245/908) with the prevalence of perceived, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-defined, and unperceived honorary authorship of 20.9% (50/239), 60% (147/245), and 46.9% (115/245), respectively. Those residing in India were found to list more honorary authors. We hope to increase awareness of the ICMJE authorship guidelines and the general issue of honorary authorship among researchers in India and elsewhere.