A Comparison of Authorship Policies at Top-Ranked Peer-Reviewed Biomedical Journals (original) (raw)
Related papers
Biochemia Medica, 2015
Introduction: Our aim was to investigate if: (a) authors of Biochemia Medica meet authorship criteria given by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), (b) authorship violations are more frequent in submissions containing some type of scientific misconduct. Materials and methods: Self-reported authorship contributions regarding the three ICMJE criteria were analysed for all submissions to Biochemia Medica (February 2013-April 2015) which were forwarded to peer-review. To test the differences in frequencies we used Chi-squared test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: 186 manuscripts were authored by 804 authors. All ICMJE criteria were met by 487/804 (61%) authors. The first and the last author met all the criteria more frequently than those authors in between (P < 0.001). The degree to which ICMJE criteria was met for the first author did not differ between manuscripts authored by only one author and those authored by >1 author (P = 0.859). In 9% of the manuscripts ICMJE criteria were not met by a single author. Authors of the 171/186 manuscripts declared that all persons qualify for authorship but only 49% of them satisfied all ICMJE criteria. Authors have failed to acknowledge contributors in 88/186 (47%) manuscripts; instead these contributors have been listed as authors without fulfilling ICMJE criteria. Authorship violation was not more common in 42 manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct (P = 0.135). Conclusion: Large proportion of authors of the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica do not fulfil ICMJE criteria. Violation of authorship criteria is not more common for manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct.
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...
JMIR formative research, 2022
Background: The qualification and order of authorship in scientific manuscripts are the main disputes in collaborative research work. Objective: The aim of this project was to develop an open-access web-based platform for objective decision-making of authorship qualification and order in medical and science journals. Methods: The design science process methodology was used to develop suitable software for authorship qualification and order. The first part of the software was designed to differentiate between qualification for authorship versus acknowledgment, using items of the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The second part addressed the order of authorship, using the analytical hierarchy process for objective multiple criteria decision-making and ranking. The platform was evaluated qualitatively (n=30) and quantitatively (n=18) using a dedicated questionnaire, by an international panel of medical and biomedical professionals and research collaborators worldwide. Results: Authorships.org represents an open-access software compatible with all major platforms and web browsers. Software usability and output were evaluated and presented for 3 existing clinical and biomedical research studies. All 18 international evaluators felt that the Authorships.org platform was easy to use or remained neutral. Moreover, 59% (n=10) were satisfied with the software output results while the rest were unsure, 59% (n=10) would definitely use it for future projects while 41% (n=7) would consider it, 94% (n=16) felt it may prove useful to eliminate disputes regarding authorship, 82% (n=14) felt that it should become mandatory for manuscript submission to journals, and 53% (n=9) raised concerns regarding the potential unethical use of the software as a tool. Conclusions: Authorships.org allows transparent evaluation of authorship qualification and order in academic medical and science journals. Objectified proof of authorship contributions may become mandatory during manuscript submission in high-quality academic journals.
Knowledge, attitudes and practices of medical researchers toward authorship in scientific journals
International Journal of Basic & Clinical Pharmacology, 2020
Background: The knowledge, attitudes and practices of scientific authorship vary across different regions. We conducted this study to understand this variation among medical researchers in India.Methods: An anonymous web-based researcher-survey invited all faculty, researchers and PhD students at Pacific institute of Medical sciences, Udaipur, India. The study design and the questionnaire were approved by the institutional ethics committee. Basic information on study was given to obtain consent for participation. The 30 questions on authorship experience and related issues were based on the statements in International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and other national and international recommendations on authorship. Participants reported their authorship experiences and answered multiple choice questionnaires.Results: The response rate was 36.36% among the participants, who were post-graduate with up to 10 years of research experience. About 62.5% had not been appropri...
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...
New developments in publishing related to authorship
Prilozi / Makedonska akademija na naukite i umetnostite, Oddelenie za biološki i medicinski nauki = Contributions / Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Section of Biological and Medical Sciences, 2014
Aim: To present the inappropriate types of authorship and practice, and the most recent developments related to basic principles and criteria to a fair system for allocating authorship in scientific publications. Methods: An analysis of relevant materials and documents, sources from the internet and published literature and personal experience and observations of the author. Results: Working in multidisciplinary teams is a common feature of modern research processes. The most sensitive question is how to decide on who to acknowledge as author of a multi-authored publication. The pertinence of this question is growing with the increasing importance of individual ecords for professional status and career. However, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to serious conflicts and disputes among coworkers which could even endanger cooperation and successful completion of a research project. It seems that discussion and education about ethical standards and practical guidelines for fairly allocating authorship are insufficient and the question of ethical practices related to authorship in multi-authored publications remains generally unresolved. Conclusion: It is necessary to work for raising awareness about the importance and need for education about principles of scientific communication and fair allocation of authorship, ethics of research and publication of results. The use of various forms of education in the scientific community, especially young researchers and students, in order to create an ethical environment, is one of the most effective ways to prevent the emergence of scientific and publication dishonesty and fraud, including pathology of authorship.
2012
""Background To assess how authors would describe their contribution to the submitted manuscript without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we analyzed responses of authors to an open-ended question "Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?". Methods Responses of authors (n=1425) who submitted their manuscripts (n=345) to the Croatian Medical Journal, an international general medical journal, from March 2009 until July 2010 were transcribed and matched to ICMJE criteria. Statements that could not be matched were separately categorized. Responses according to the number of authors or their byline position on the manuscript were analyzed using Mann--Whitney U test and Moses test of extreme reactions. Results The number of authors per manuscript ranged from 1 to 26 (median=4, IQR=3-6), with the median of 2 contributions per author (IQR=2-3). Authors' responses could be matched to the ICMJE criteria in 1116 (87.0%) cases. Among these, only 15.6% clearly declared contributions from all 3 ICMJE criteria; however, if signing of the authorship form was taken as the fulfillment of the third ICMJE criterion, overall fraction of deserving authorship was 54.2%. Non-ICMJE contributions were declared by 98 (7.6%) authors whose other contributions could be matched to ICMJE criteria, and by 116 (13.0%) authors whose contributions could not be matched to ICMJE criteria. The most frequently reported non-ICMJE contribution was literature review. Authors on manuscripts with more than 8 authors declared more contributions than those on manuscript with 8 or fewer authors: median 2, IQR 1--4, vs. median 2, IQR 1--3, respectively (Mann Whitney U test, p=0.001; Moses Test of Extreme Reactions, p<0.001). Almost a third of single authors (n=9; 31.0%) reported contributions that could not be matched to any ICMJE criterion. Conclusions In cases of multi-author collaborative efforts but not in manuscripts with fewer authors open-ended authorship declaration without instructions on ICMJE criteria elicited responses from authors that were similar to responses when ICMJE criteria were explicitly required. Current authorship criteria and the practice of contribution declaration should be revised in order to capture deserving authorship in biomedical research. ""