Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations

Global Trends and Research Hotspots in Long COVID: A Bibliometric Analysis

Long COVID is a condition distinguished by long-term sequelae that occur or persist after the convalescence period of COVID-19. During the COVID-19 pandemic, more and more people who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 experienced long COVID, which attracted the attention of researchers. This study aims to assess the pattern of long COVID research literature, analyze the research topics, and provide insights on long COVID. In this study, we extracted 784 publications from Scopus in the field of long COVID. According to bibliometric analysis, it is found that: developed countries in Europe and America were in leading positions in terms of paper productivity and citations. The International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health and the Journal of Clinical Medicine were leading journals in the perspective of publications count, and Nature Medicine had the highest number of citations. Author Greenhalgh T has the highest number of papers and citations. The main research topics were: pathophysiology, symptoms, treatment, and epidemiology. The causes of long COVID may be related to organ injury, inflammation, maladaptation of the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) pathway, and mental factors. The symptoms are varied, including physical and psychological symptoms. Treatment options vary from person to person. Most patients developed at least one long-term symptom. Finally, we presented some possible research opportunities.

Citation Classics in Consumer Neuroscience, Neuromarketing and Neuroaesthetics: Identification and Conceptual Analysis

Neuromarketing, consumer neuroscience and neuroaesthetics are a broad research area of neuroscience with an extensive background in scientific publications. Thus, the present study aims to identify the highly cited papers (HCPs) in this research field, to deliver a summary of the academic work produced during the last decade in this area, and to show patterns, features, and trends that define the past, present, and future of this specific area of knowledge. The HCPs show a perspective of those documents that, historically, have attracted great interest from a research community and that could be considered as the basis of the research field. In this study, we retrieved 907 documents and analyzed, through H-Classics methodology, 50 HCPs identified in the Web of Science (WoS) during the period 2010-2019. The H-Classic approach offers an objective method to identify core knowledge in neuroscience disciplines such as neuromarketing, consumer neuroscience, and neuroaesthetics. To accomplish this study, we used Bibliometrix R Package and SciMAT software. This analysis provides results that give us a useful insight into the development of this field of research, revealing those scientific actors who have made the greatest contribution to its development: authors, institutions, sources, countries as well as documents and references.

Ten strategies for avoiding and overcoming authorship conflicts in academic publishing

For better or for worse, authorship is a currency in scholarly research and advancement. In scholarly writing, authorship is widely acknowledged as a means of conferring credit but is also tied to concepts such as responsibility and accountability. Authorship is one of the most divisive topics both at the level of the research team and more broadly in the academy and beyond. At present, authorship is often the primary way to assert and receive credit in many scholarly pursuits and domains. Debates rage, publicly but mostly privately, regarding authorship. Here we attempt to clarify key concepts related to authorship informed by our collective experiences and anchored in relevant contemporary literature. Rather than dwelling on the problems, we focus on proactive strategies for creating more just, equitable, and transparent avenues for minimizing conflict around authorship and where there is adequate recognition of the entire process of knowledge generation, synthesis, sharing, and application with partners within and beyond the academy. We frame our ideas around 10 strategies that collectively constitute a roadmap for avoiding and overcoming challenges associated with authorship decisions.

Contribution based author categorization to calculate author performance index

Despite the widely used author contribution criteria, unethical authorship practices such as guest, ghost, and honorary authorship remain largely unsolved. We have identified six major reasons by analyzing 78 published papers addressing unethical authorship practice. Those are lack of: (i) awareness about and (ii) compliance with authorship criteria, (iii) universal definition and scope for determining authorship, (iv) common mechanisms for positioning an author in the list, (v) quantitative measures of intellectual contribution; and (vi) pressure to publish. As a  measure to control unethical practice, we have evaluated the possibility to adopt an author categorization scheme - proposed according to the common understanding of how first-, co-, principal-, or corresponding- author is perceived. Based on an online opinion survey, the scheme was supported by ~80% of the respondents (n=370). The impact of the proposed categorization was then evaluated using a novel mathematical tool to measure "Author Performance Index (API)" that can be higher for those who might have authored more papers as primary and/or principal authors than those as coauthors. Hence, if adopted, the proposed author categorization scheme together with the API would provide a better way to evaluate the credit of an individual as a primary and principal author.

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration

BACKGROUND

Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.

MAIN BODY

When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals' authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.

CONCLUSION

Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members.

Scholarship in Emergency Medicine: A Primer for Junior Academics Part I: Writing and Publishing

The landscape of scholarly writing, publishing, and university promotion can be complex and challenging. Mentorship may be limited. To be successful it is important to understand the key components of writing and publishing. In this article, we provide expert consensus recommendations on four key challenges faced by junior faculty: writing the paper; selecting contributors and the importance of authorship order; journal selection and indexing; and responding to critiques. After reviewing this paper, the reader should have an enhanced understanding of these challenges and strategies to successfully address them.

The author who wasn't there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks

We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.

Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

"Conferring authorship": biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research

Background

Multi-collaborator research is increasingly becoming the norm in the field of biomedicine. With this trend comes the imperative to award recognition to all those who contribute to a study; however, there is a gap in the current “gold standard” in authorship guidelines with regards to the efforts of those who provide high quality biosamples and data, yet do not play a role in the intellectual development of the final publication.

Methods and findings

We carried out interviews with 36 individuals working in, or with links to, biobanks in Switzerland, in order to understand how they interpret, apply and value authorship criteria in studies involving biosamples. The majority of respondents feel that authorship is an important motivating factor in working and publishing collaboratively. However, our findings suggest that in some cases, authorship guidelines are being ignored in favor of departmental standards which recognize “scientific work” as meriting authorship.

Conclusions

Our results support the current calls in the literature for an alternative method of crediting biomaterial contributions, in order to ensure appropriate authorship inclusion and promote collaborative research involving biobanks.

Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles

Working in multidisciplinary teams has become a common feature of modern research processes. This situation inevitably leads to the question of how to decide on who to acknowledge as authors of a multi-authored publication. The question is gaining pertinence, since individual scientists' publication records are playing an increasingly important role in their professional success. At worst, discussions about authorship allocation might lead to a serious conflict among coworkers that could even endanger the successful completion of a whole research project. Surprisingly, there does not seem to be any discussion on the issue of ethical standards for authorship is the field of Cognitive Science at the moment. In this short review I address the problem by characterizing modern challenges to a fair system for allocating authorship. I also offer a list of best practice principles and recommendations for determining authors in multi-authored publications on the basis of a review of existing standards.

The responsible conduct of bioethics research

The responsible conduct of research in the biomedical and behavioral sciences has received significant attention since the late 1980s. However, very little has been written about the responsible conduct of bioethics research. Bioethics is an interdisciplinary field and brings together divergent ethical standards and practices which may be the source of tension or conflict. This article argues that bioethicists should reflect more on ethical issues in the responsible conduct of bioethics research through examination of authorship practices and peer review. I also outline three possible approaches to promote research integrity in bioethics.

Scientific integrity: critical issues in environmental health research

Environmental health research is a relatively new scientific area with much interdisciplinary collaboration. Regardless of which human population is included in field studies (e.g., general population, working population, children, elderly, vulnerable sub-groups, etc.) their conduct must guarantee well acknowledged ethical principles. These principles, along with codes of conduct, are aimed at protecting study participants from research-related undesired effects and guarantee research integrity. A central role is attributed to the need for informing potential participants (i.e., recruited subjects who may be enrolled in a study), obtaining their written informed consent to participate, and making them aware of their right to refuse to participate at any time and for any reason. Data protection is also required and communication of study findings must respect participant's willingness to know or not know. This is specifically relevant for studies including biological markers and/or storing biological samples that might be analysed years later to tackle research objectives that were specified and communicated to participants at the time of recruitment or that may be formulated after consent was obtained.Integrity is central to environmental health research searching for causal relations. It requires open communication and trust and any violation (i.e., research misconduct, including fabrication or falsification of data, plagiarism, conflicting interests, etc.) may endanger the societal trust in the research community as well as jeopardize participation rates in field projects.

The distribution of forensic journals, reflections on authorship practices, peer-review and role of the impact factor

This article presents information about journals specializing in the forensic sciences and legal medicine, their development and distribution and their current status as reflected in the journal impact factor. The first scientific journal devoted to spreading information and reporting new developments in social and legal medicine seemingly originated in Germany about 150 years ago. The official journal of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (Journal of Forensic Sciences, JFS) was founded in 1956 and has enjoyed 50 years of scholarly publishing. The two leading European journals specializing in forensics are Forensic Science International (FSI) and International Journal of Legal Medicine (IJLM). Besides the size of the circulation, the readership numbers, the quality of the editorial staff and the peer-reviewers, the number of submitted and accepted manuscripts, considerable interest has focused on the journal's impact factor as a measure of prestige. The 2006 impact factor of a certain journal is derived by counting the number of citations in 2006 to all material published in the journal in the previous 2 years (2004 and 2005) and dividing this total by the number of citable items (articles and reviews) published in the same 2 years. Impact factors for several thousand scientific journals are compiled and published by a company called Thomson Institute for Scientific Information (Thomson ISI) and are available on-line via the database Journal Citation Reports. Forensic journals are grouped within the subject category Medicine, Legal, which currently comprises nine journals a few of which are seemingly unrelated to mainstream forensics. The top-ranked forensic journal in terms of its impact factor was IJLM with a score of just over 2.0 in 2004. This means that the average article published in 2003 and 2002 was cited twice per year in the 2-year window after publication. Impact factors of forensic journals are fairly low in comparison with many other disciplines, probably because of the small size of the field, fewer active researchers and less pressure to publish. The relatively low impact factors of forensic journals should be less of a concern than ensuring that manuscripts receive a rigorous and preferably an open peer-review prior to acceptance for publication. The information, conclusions and opinions published in forensic science journals might one day be proffered as evidence in criminal or civil litigation.

Scientific authorship

One challenge for most scientists is avoiding and resolving issues that center around authorship and the publishing of scientific manuscripts. While trying to place the research in proper context, impart new knowledge, follow proper guidelines, and publish in the most appropriate journal, the scientist often must deal with multi-collaborator issues like authorship allocation, trust and dependence, and resolution of publication conflicts. Most guidelines regarding publications, commentaries, and editorials have evolved from the ranks of editors in an effort to diminish the issues that faced them as editors. For example, the Ingelfinger rule attempts to prevent duplicate publications of the same study. This paper provides a historical overview of commonly encountered scientific authorship issues, a comparison of opinions on these issues, and the influence of various organizations and guidelines in regards to these issues. For example, a number of organizations provide guidelines for author allocation; however, a comparison shows that these guidelines differ on who should be an author, rules for ordering authors, and the level of responsibility for coauthors. Needs that emerge from this review are (a) a need for more controlled studies on authorship issues, (b) an increased awareness and a buy-in to consensus views by non-editor groups, e.g., managers, authors, reviewers, and scientific societies, and (c) a need for editors to express a greater understanding of authors' dilemmas and to exhibit greater flexibility. Also needed are occasions (e.g., an international congress) when editors and others (managers, authors, etc.) can directly exchange views, develop consensus approaches and solutions, and seek agreement on how to resolve authorship issues. Open dialogue is healthy, and it is essential for scientific integrity to be protected so that younger scientists can confidently follow the lead of their predecessors.

Conducting interdisciplinary research to promote healthy and safe employment in health care: promises and pitfalls

Due to the complexity of human health, emphasis is increasingly being placed on the need for and conduct of multidisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary health research. Yet many academic and research organizations--and the discipline-specific associations and journals--may not yet be prepared to adopt changes necessary to optimally support interdisciplinary work. This article presents an ongoing interdisciplinary research project's efforts to investigate mechanisms and pathways that lead to occupational health disparities among healthcare workers. It describes the promises and pitfalls encountered during the research,and outlines effective strategies that emerged as a result. Lessons learned include: conflict resolution regarding theoretical and methodological differences; establishing a sense of intellectual ownership of the research, as well as guidelines for multiple authorship; and development and utilization of protocols, communication systems, and tools. This experience suggests a need for the establishment of supportive structures and processes to promote successful interdisciplinary research.

Multisite research: a systems approach

Multisite research is becoming increasingly common because of the need for an adequate sample size and for generalizability of results beyond a single facility. Collaboration in a research project poses unique challenges due to the number of persons and facilities involved. The use of a systems approach to structure the research process in a study of pain in children with leukemia is described, using the principles to structure, conduct, and conclude the multisite project.

Authorship: "Law" and order

Publication is a marker of academic success. In academia, appointments and promotions are in many cases strongly linked to the candidate's bibliography. The "publish or perish" mindset has placed extraordinary pressures on scientists and academic physicians alike. Authorship controversies have received considerable attention in the medical literature. Although guidelines are available to help determine how attribution should be acknowledged, anecdotal experiences with disputes associated with authorship continue to exist. This paper addresses several key problems facing authorship. A discussion of who should be given authorship, the responsibilities of an author, and a method for assigning authorship in a multiauthored publication is provided.

From authorship to contributorship. Promoting integrity in research publication

Shared authorship in nursing research presents practical and ethical dilemmas and does not effectively capture individual research participation and accountability. This study, which defined author contributions and practices in multiauthored nursing research, contributed to a better understanding of contemporary author participation and the inherent challenges faced by nurse scholars in determining authorship credit. A method of "contributorship" is proposed which would delineate individual contributions to the research project while maintaining professional integrity, scientific accountability, and scholarly recognition.