Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations

Group authorship, an excellent opportunity laced with ethical, legal and technical challenges

Group authorship (also known as corporate authorship, team authorship, consortium authorship) refers to attribution practices that use the name of a collective (be it team, group, project, corporation, or consortium) in the authorship byline. Data shows that group authorships are on the rise but thus far, in scholarly discussions about authorship, they have not gained much specific attention. Group authorship can minimize tensions within the group about authorship order and the criteria used for inclusion/exclusion of individual authors. However, current use of group authorships has drawbacks, such as ethical challenges associated with the attribution of credit and responsibilities, legal challenges regarding how copyrights are handled, and technical challenges related to the lack of persistent identifiers (PIDs), such as ORCID, for groups. We offer two recommendations: 1) Journals should develop and share context-specific and unambiguous guidelines for group authorship, for which they can use the four baseline requirements offered in this paper; 2) Using persistent identifiers for groups and consistent reporting of members' contributions should be facilitated through devising PIDs for groups and linking these to the ORCIDs of their individual contributors and the Digital Object Identifier (DOI) of the published item.

Efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies in neuromyelitis optica spectrum disorders: A survival meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Monoclonal antibodies such as rituximab (RTX), eculizumab, inebilizumab, satralizumab, and tocilizumab have been found to be effective therapies for neuromyelitis optica spectrum disease ​(NMOSD) in several clinical randomized controlled trials.

Objective

The purpose of this meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was to assess the efficacy and safety of monoclonal antibodies in the treatment of NMOSD.

Methods

We searched the following databases for relevant English language literature from the establishment of the database to June 2021: PubMed, Embase, Cohorane Library, the Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Web of Science. Randomized controlled trials of monoclonal antibodies were the targets of the review.

Results

We included seven trials containing 775 patients (485 in the monoclonal antibody group and 290 in the control group). Patients in the monoclonal group (HR 0.24, 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.40, P ​< ​0.00001), as well as patients with seropositive AQP4-IgG (HR 0.18, 95% CI: 0.11 to 0.29, P ​< ​0.00001), both had a higher free recurrence rate than that in the control group. In the first year (HR 0.25, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.71, P ​= ​0.009) and the second year (HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.81, P ​= ​0.02), no relapses were documented. The average changes of the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) score decreased by 0.29 (95% CI: -0.09 to 0.51, P ​= ​0.005). Upper respiratory tract infection (OR 1.52, 95% CI: 0.76 to 3.04, P ​= ​0.24), urinary tract infection(OR 0.79, 95% CI: 0.51 to 1.21, P ​= ​0.27), and headache (OR 1.30, 95% CI: 0.78 to 2.17, P ​= ​0.31) were three most frequent adverse reactions.

Conclusions

Monoclonal antibodies are particularly effective treatments in avoiding recurrence for NMOSD patients, according to this meta-analysis. The associated adverse responses are not significantly different from those seen with traditional immunosuppressants.

No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications

Authorship is the currency of an academic career. Scientific publications have significant academic and financial implications. Several standard authorship guidelines exist, and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) is the most popular amongst them. There are increasing concerns about the ethics of publications with the rise of inappropriate authorship. The most important reason appears to be a lack of knowledge and awareness of the authorship guidelines and what actions constitute unethical behaviors. There is a need to incorporate standard guidelines in medical curricula and conduct structured training and education programs for researchers across the board. The current perspective describes the significant concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship, and the possible measures being formulated to shape the future of authorship.