Review of current authorship guidelines and the controversy regarding publication of clinical trial data

Reporting of clinical trials: publication, authorship, and trial registration

Transparency is the foundation on which all of research integrity rests. The public trust from patients, providers, and policy makers depends on fidelity to the mandates of accountability and access. Two important foundational practices for maintaining transparency in research and the reporting of clinical trials discussed in this review concern manuscript authorship and clinical trial registry, recognizing recent controversies regarding honorary and ghost authorship in the publication of industry-sponsored studies.

A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines

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.

Clinical trial registries and clinical trial result posting: new paradigm for medical writers

Clinical trial registries and posting of clinical trial results have recently become standard procedures for drug development. Several groups, including journal editors and professional trade organizations have called for legislation or have mandated terms or both for the public disclosure of current trials and the results of the clinical trials within a short timeframe after the trial has ended.

Authorship versus "credit" for participation in research: a case study of potential ethical dilemmas created by technical tools used by researchers and claims for authorship by their creators

The distinction between authorship and other forms of credit for contribution to a publication has been a persisting controversy that has resulted in numerous guidelines outlining the expected contributions of those claiming authorship. While there have been flagrant, well-publicized deviations from widely accepted standards, they are largely outnumbered by cases that are not publicity-worthy, and therefore remain known to only those directly involved with the inappropriate conduct. We discuss the definition and ethical requirements of authorship, offer a case example of the authorship debate created by a technical tool at our institution, and review parallels that support and dispute the authorship claims of our software developers. Ultimately, we conclude that development of a technical tool that enables data collection does not adequately substitute for contributions to study design and manuscript preparation for authorship purposes. Unless the designers of such a technical tool prospectively participate as a part of the project, they would not have an adequate understanding of the publication's genesis to defend it publicly and cannot be listed as authors. Therefore, it is incumbent upon project members to invite tool developers to participate at the beginning of such projects, and for tool developers to contribute to study design and manuscript preparation when they desire authorship listings.

Guidelines and policies for medical writers in the biotech industry: An update on the controversy

Papers reporting the results of clinical trials written by medical writers employed by the biotech and pharmaceutical industries have been criticized for possible bias in presentation and failure to adhere to authorship guidelines. Several groups have attempted to address the concerns of journal editors, academics, regulators, and the general public by issuing guidelines and policies for the preparation of such material.