Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions

The use of extracorporeal blood purification therapies and sequential extracorporeal support in patients with septic shock (EROICASS): a study protocol for a national, non-interventional, observational multicenter, prospective study

BACKGROUND

Septic shock, a critical condition characterized by organ failure, presents a substantial mortality risk in intensive care units (ICUs), with the 28-day mortality rate possibly reaching 40%. Conventional management of septic shock typically involves the administration of antibiotics, supportive care for organ dysfunction, and, if necessary, surgical intervention to address the source of infection. In recent decades, extracorporeal blood purification therapies (EBPT) have emerged as potential interventions aimed at modulating the inflammatory response and restoring homeostasis in patients with sepsis. Likewise, sequential extracorporeal therapy in sepsis (SETS) interventions offer comprehensive organ support in the setting of multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS). The EROICASS study will assess and describe the utilization of EBPT in patients with septic shock. Additionally, we will evaluate the potential association between EBPT treatment utilization and 90-day mortality in septic shock cases in Italy.

METHODS

The EROICASS study is a national, non-interventional, multicenter observational prospective cohort study. All consecutive patients with septic shock at participating centers will be prospectively enrolled, with data collection extending from intensive care unit (ICU) admission to hospital discharge. Variables including patient demographics, clinical parameters, EBPT/SETS utilization, and outcomes will be recorded using a web-based data capture system. Statistical analyses will encompass descriptive statistics, hypothesis testing, multivariable regression models, and survival analysis to elucidate the associations between EBPT/SETS utilization and patient outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The EROICASS study provides valuable insights into the utilization and outcomes of EBPT and SETS in septic shock management. Through analysis of usage patterns and clinical data, this study aims to guide treatment decisions and enhance patient care. The implications of these findings may impact clinical guidelines, potentially improving survival rates and patient outcomes in septic shock cases.

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

Investigating the division of scientific labor using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT)

Contributorship statements were introduced by scholarly journals in the late 1990s to provide more details on the specific contributions made by authors to research papers. After more than a decade of idiosyncratic taxonomies by journals, a partnership between medical journals and standards organizations has led to the establishment, in 2015, of the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), which provides a standardized set of 14 research contributions. Using the data from Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals over the 2017–2018 period (N = 30,054 papers), this paper analyzes how research contributions are divided across research teams, focusing on the association between division of labor and number of authors, and authors’ position and specific contributions. It also assesses whether some contributions are more likely to be performed in conjunction with others and examines how the new taxonomy provides greater insight into the gendered nature of labor division. The paper concludes with a discussion of results with respect to current issues in research evaluation, science policy, and responsible research practices.

Task specialization across research careers

Research careers are typically envisioned as a single path in which a scientist starts as a member of a team working under the guidance of one or more experienced scientists and, if they are successful, ends with the individual leading their own research group and training future generations of scientists. Here we study the author contribution statements of published research papers in order to explore possible biases and disparities in career trajectories in science. We used Bayesian networks to train a prediction model based on a dataset of 70,694 publications from PLoS journals, which included 347,136 distinct authors and their associated contribution statements. This model was used to predict the contributions of 222,925 authors in 6,236,239 publications, and to apply a robust archetypal analysis to profile scientists across four career stages: junior, early-career, mid-career and late-career. All three of the archetypes we found - leader, specialized, and supporting - were encountered for early-career and mid-career researchers. Junior researchers displayed only two archetypes (specialized, and supporting), as did late-career researchers (leader and supporting). Scientists assigned to the leader and specialized archetypes tended to have longer careers than those assigned to the supporting archetype. We also observed consistent gender bias at all stages: the majority of male scientists belonged to the leader archetype, while the larger proportion of women belonged to the specialized archetype, especially for early-career and mid-career researchers.

Authorship order and effects of changing bibliometrics practices

Although the authorship order on published research plays a significant role for scientific merit in many research contexts, and therefore should be handled with great care not least for the sake of fairness, the practices of accrediting authorship positions vary greatly between different research areas. This paper makes the point, by help of a current example, that changes in bibliometrics practices may make an already disparate landscape even more confusing.

Comparison of the contributions of female and male authors to medical research in 2000 and 2015: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The proportion of women engaged in clinical research has increased over time. However, it is unclear if women and men contribute to the same extent during the conduct of research and, if so, if they are equally rewarded by a strategic first or last author position. We aim to describe the prevalence of women authors of original articles published 15 years apart and to compare the research contributions and author positions according to gender.

DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Published original articles.

PARTICIPANTS

1910 authors of 223 original articles published in the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2000 and 2015.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES

Self-reported contributions to 10 aspects of the article (primary) and author position on the byline.

RESULTS

The proportion of women authors increased from 32% (n=243) to 41% (n=469) between 2000 and 2015 (p<0.0001). In 2000, women authors were less frequently involved than men in the conception and design (134 (55%) vs 323 (61%); p=0.0256), critical revision (171 (70%) vs 426 (81%); p=0.0009), final approval (196 (81%) vs 453 (86%); p=0.0381) and obtaining of funding (39 (16%) vs 114 (22%); p=0.0245). Women were more frequently involved than men in administration and logistics (85 (35%) vs 137 (26%); p=0.0188) and data collection (121 (50%) vs 242 (46%); p=0.0532), but they were similarly involved in the analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, provision of materials/patients and statistical expertise. Women were less often last authors than men (22 (9%) vs 82 (16%); p=0.0102). These gender differences persisted in 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

The representation of women among authors of medical articles increased notably between 2000 and 2015, but still remained below 50%. Women's roles differed from those of men with no change over time.

Addressing the vexed issue of authorship and author order: A discussion paper

AIMS

To review and discuss authorship and author order in the context of nursing and midwifery publications and to present a set of principles to guide and justify author order.

BACKGROUND

Variation in author order trends is evident across different authors, disciplines and countries. Confusion and conflict between authors give rise to important issues concerning ethics and collaboration and may delay publication. Lack of transparency in authorship practices also impedes judgements when individual contributions are used in support of employment, promotion, tenure and/or research funding applications.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of BioMed Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), MEDLINE with Full Text and PubMed for original peer-reviewed papers published in English between 2007 - 2017, in the disciplines of nursing and midwifery.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Much is written about authorship practices across disciplines and countries. Despite existing authorship guidelines, author order remains an area of confusion and contention. Disputes about authorship and author order have the potential to cause distrust and breakdowns in research relationships, thereby disrupting nursing and midwifery scholarship and research. The main issues concern honorary and ghost authorship, authorship versus acknowledgement, confusion about collaboration, author order, research students as co-authors, equal author credit and the need for explicit guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Good communication and mutual respect are crucial to the authorship process. However, clear instructions are needed to guide decisions on authorship and author order. It is recommended that the "first-last-author-emphasis" be adopted uniformly internationally across nursing and midwifery research.

How do research faculty in the biosciences evaluate paper authorship criteria?

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.

Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?

Authorship is a central element of scientific research carrying a variety of rewards and responsibilities, and while various guidelines exist, actual author contributions are often ambiguous. Inconsistent or limited contributions threaten to devalue authorship as intellectual currency and diminish authors’ responsibility for published content. Researchers have assessed author contributions in the medical literature and other research fields, but similar data for the field of ecological research are lacking. Authorship practices in ecological research are broadly representative of a variety of fields due to the cross-disciplinary nature of collaborations in ecological studies. To better understand author contributions to current research, we distributed a survey regarding co-author contributions to a random selection of 996 lead authors of manuscripts published in ecological journals in 2010. We obtained useable responses from 45% of surveyed authors. Reported lead author contributions in ecological research studies consistently included conception of the project idea, data collection, analysis, and writing. Middle and last author contributions instead showed a high level of individual variability. Lead authorship in ecology is well defined while secondary authorship is more ambiguous. Nearly half (48%) of all studies included in our survey had some level of non-compliance with Ecological Society of America (ESA) authorship guidelines and the majority of studies (78%) contained at least one co-author that did not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements. Incidence of non-compliance varied with lead author occupation and author position. The probability of a study including an author that was non-compliant with ESA guidelines was lowest for professor-led studies and highest for graduate student and post doctoral researcher-led studies. Among studies with > two co-authors, all lead authors met ESA guidelines and only 2% failed to meet ICMJE requirements. Middle (24% ESA, 63% ICMJE) and last (37% ESA, 60% ICMJE) authors had higher rates of non-compliance. The probability of a study containing a co-author that did not meet ESA or ICMJE requirements increased significantly with the number of co-authors per study although even studies with only two co-authors had a high probability of non-compliance of approximately 60% (ICMJE) and 15 to 40% (ESA). Given the variable and often limited contributions of authors in our survey and past studies of other research disciplines, institutions, journals, and scientific societies need to implement new approaches to instill meaning in authorship status. A byline approach may not alter author contributions but would better define individual contributions and reduce existing ambiguity regarding the meaning of authorship in modern ecological research.

Thinker, Soldier, Scribe: cross-sectional study of researchers' roles and author order in the Annals of Internal Medicine

OBJECTIVE

How researchers' contributions relate to author order on the byline remains unclear. We sought to identify researchers' contributions associated with author order, and to explore the existence of author profiles.

DESIGN

Observational study.

SETTING

Published record.

PARTICIPANTS

1139 authors of 119 research articles published in 2015 in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Presence or absence of 10 contributions, reported by each author, published in the journal.

RESULTS

On average, first authors reported 7.1 contributions, second authors 5.2, middle authors 4.0, penultimate authors 4.5 and last authors 6.4 (p<0.001). The first author made the greatest contributions to drafting the article, designing the study, analysing and interpreting the data, and providing study materials or patients. The second author contributed to data analysis as well and to drafting the article. The last author was most involved in obtaining the funding, critically revising the article, designing the study and providing support. Factor analysis yielded three author profiles-Thinker (study design, revision of article, obtaining funding), Soldier (providing material or patients, providing administrative and logistical support, collecting data) and Scribe (analysis and interpretation of data, drafting the article, statistical expertise). These profiles do not strictly correspond to byline position.

CONCLUSIONS

First, second and last authors of research articles made distinct contributions to published research. Three authorship profiles can be used to summarise author contributions. These findings shed light on the organisation of clinical research teams and may help researchers discuss, plan and report authorship in a more transparent way.

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.

Managing Opportunities and Challenges of Co-Authorship

Research with the largest impact on practice and science is often conducted by teams with diverse substantive, clinical, and methodological expertise. Team and interdisciplinary research has created authorship groups with varied expertise and expectations. Co-authorship among team members presents many opportunities and challenges. Intentional planning, clear expectations, sensitivity to differing disciplinary perspectives, attention to power differentials, effective communication, timelines, attention to published guidelines, and documentation of progress will contribute to successful co-authorship. Both novice and seasoned authors will find the strategies identified by the Western Journal of Nursing Research Editorial Board useful for building positive co-authorship experiences.

Honorary authorship in radiologic research articles: do geographic factors influence the frequency?

PURPOSE

To quantify the potential effect of geographic factors on the frequency of honorary authorship in four major radiology journals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this institutional review board-approved study, an electronic survey was sent to first authors of all original research articles published in American Journal of Roentgenology, European Radiology, Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging, and Radiology during 2 years (July 2009 through June 2011). Questions addressed guidelines used for determining authorship, perception of honorary authorship, and demographic information. Univariate analysis was performed by using χ(2) tests. Multiple-variable logistic regression models were used to assess independent factors associated with the perception of honorary authorship.

RESULTS

Of 1398 first authors, 328 (23.5%) responded. Of these, 91 (27.7%) perceived that at least one coauthor did not make sufficient contributions to merit authorship, and 165 (50.3%) stated that one or more coauthors performed only "nonauthor" tasks according to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. The perception of honorary authorship was significantly higher (P ≤ .0001) among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America and in institutions where a section or department head was automatically listed as coauthor. A significantly lower (P ≤ .0001) perception of honorary authorship was associated with adherence to ICMJE criteria and with policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics.

CONCLUSION

Perceived honorary authorship was substantially higher among respondents from Asia and Europe than from North America. Perceived honorary authorship was lower with adherence to the ICMJE guidelines and policies providing lectures or courses on publication ethics.

Faculty Member's Views, Attitude and Current Practice As Regards International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Criteria for Authorship

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.

Guideline funding and conflicts of interest: article 4 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report

INTRODUCTION

Professional societies, like many other organizations around the world, have recognized the need to use more rigorous processes to ensure that healthcare recommendations are informed by the best available research evidence. This is the fourth of a series of 14 articles prepared to advise guideline developers in respiratory and other disease. It focuses on commercial funding of guidelines and managing conflict of interest effectively in the context of guidelines.

METHODS

In this review, we addressed the following topics and questions. (1) How are clinical practice guidelines funded? (2) What are the risks associated with commercial sponsorship of guidelines? (3) What relationships should guideline committee members be required to disclose? (4) What is the most efficient way to obtain complete and accurate disclosures? (5) How should disclosures be publicly shared? (6) When do relationships require management? (7) How should individual conflicts of interest be managed? (8) How could conflict of interest policies be enforced? The literature review included a search of PubMed and other databases for existing systematic reviews and relevant methodological research. Our conclusions are based on available evidence, consideration of what guideline developers are doing, and workshop discussions.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Professional societies often depend on industry funding to support clinical practice guideline development. In addition, members of guideline committees frequently have financial relationships with commercial entities, are invested in their intellectual work, or have conflicts related to clinical revenue streams. No systematic reviews or other rigorous evidence regarding best practices for funding models, disclosure mechanisms, management strategies, or enforcement presently exist, but the panel drew several conclusions that could improve transparency and process.

Medical students' decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study

In medicine, professional behavior and ethics are often rule-based. We assessed whether instruction on formal criteria of authorship affected the decision of students about authorship dilemmas and whether they perceive authorship as a conventional or moral concept. A prospective non-randomized intervention study involved 203s year medical students who did (n = 107) or did not (n = 96) received a lecture on International Committee of Medical Journal editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria. Both groups had to read 3 vignettes and answer 4 questions related to the distinction between conventional and moral domains. Written justification of student' choices whether the authorship in a vignette was right or wrong was rated by 4 independent raters as based on justice or a rule. Formal instruction had no effect on students' decisions on authorship in the vignettes (44, 34 and 39% ICMJE-consistent answers for 3 vignettes, respectively, by students receiving instruction vs. 38, 42 and 30% for those without instruction; P > 0.161 for all vignettes). For all dilemmas, more students decided contrary to ICMJE criteria and considered their decisions to be a matter of obligation and not a choice and to be general across situations and sciences. They were willing to change their decision if a rule was different only for peer situations but not for mentor-mentee situations. The number of students who used rule-based justification of their ICMJE criteria-consistent decisions was significantly higher in the instructed than in the uninstructed group. Instruction about formal authorship criteria had no effect on student's decisions about authorship dilemmas and their decisions were related to the moral rather than a conventional domain. Teaching about authorship and other professionalism and integrity issues may benefit from interventions that bring intuitive processes into awareness instead of those fostering rule-based reasoning.

Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal

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.

Múltipla autoria: crescimento ou bolha inflacionária?

OBJETIVO: Analisar o aumento do número de autores por artigo em revistas científicas brasileiras de saúde coletiva. MÉTODOS: Foram pesquisados na base de dados LILACS artigos publicados em seis revistas de saúde coletiva e uma revista médica (para comparação), da coleção SciELO, com classificação Qualis, da Capes, igual ou superior a B-1, entre 1999 e 2010. Foram avaliadas a evolução da mediana de números de autores/artigo e a proporção de artigos com mais de quatro autores. Estimou-se a associação entre o triênio de publicação e a presença de quatro ou mais autores por artigo por meio de odds ratio de Mantel-Haenzel, ajustadas para o tipo de revista. RESULTADOS: Houve crescimento da mediana do número de autores e da proporção de artigos com mais de quatro autores para todas as revistas, principalmente no último triênio. As odds ratio para publicação de artigos com quatro autores ou mais, ajustadas para os tipo de revista, foram: segundo triênio: 1,3 (IC95% 1,1;1,4); terceiro triênio: 1,5 (IC95% 1,3;1,8); quarto triênio: 2,39 (IC95% 2,1;2,8). CONCLUSÕES: Periódicos científicos de saúde coletiva têm apresentado aumento no número de autores por artigo ao longo dos anos, independentemente da orientação editorial.

Criteria for authorship in bioethics

Multiple authorship is becoming increasingly common in bioethics research. There are well-established criteria for authorship in empirical bioethics research but not for conceptual research. It is important to develop criteria for authorship in conceptual publications to prevent undeserved authorship and uphold standards of fairness and accountability. This article explores the issue of multiple authorship in bioethics and develops criteria for determining who should be an author on a conceptual publication in bioethics. Authorship in conceptual research should be based on contributing substantially to: (1) identifying a topic, problem, or issue to study; (2) reviewing and interpreting the relevant literature; (3) formulating, analyzing, and evaluating arguments that support one or more theses; (4) responding to objections and counterarguments; and (5) drafting the manuscript. Authors of conceptual publications should participate substantially in at least two of areas (1)-(5) and also approve the final version. [corrected].

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.

How industry uses the ICMJE guidelines to manipulate authorship--and how they should be revised

Based upon his 15 years of experience as a medical writer, Alastair Matheson argues that rather than obstructing industry, the current ICMJE authorship guidelines have become its preferred tool for misattributing authorship.

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.

Authorship policies of bioethics journals

Inappropriate authorship is a common problem in biomedical research and may be becoming one in bioethics, due to the increase in multiple authorship. This paper investigates the authorship policies of bioethics journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for researchers who submit articles for publication, which can help deter inappropriate authorship. It was found that 63.3% of bioethics journals provide no guidance on authorship; 36.7% provide guidance on which contributions merit authorship, 23.3% provide guidance on which contributions do not merit authorship, 23.3% require authors to take responsibility for their contributions or for the article as a whole, 20% provide guidance on which contributions merit an acknowledgement but not authorship, 6.7% require authors to describe their contributions, and only 3.3% distinguish between authorship in empirical and conceptual research. To provide authors with effective guidance and promote integrity in bioethics research, bioethics journals should adopt authorship policies that address several important topics, such as the qualifications for authorship, describing authorship contributions, taking responsibility for the research and the difference between authorship in empirical and conceptual research.

Less work, less respect: authors' perceived importance of research contributions and their declared contributions to research articles

BACKGROUND

Attitudes towards authorship are connected with authors' research experience and with knowledge of authorship criteria of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). The objective of this study was to assess association between authors' perceived importance of contributions for authorship qualification and their participation in manuscripts submitted to a journal.

METHODS

Authors (n = 1181) of 265 manuscripts submitted to the Croatian Medical Journal were asked to identify and rate their contribution in the preparation of the submitted manuscript (0-none to 4-full for 11 listed contributions) and the importance of these contributions as authorship qualifications (0-none to 4-full). They were randomly allocated into 3 groups: the first (n = 90 manuscripts, n = 404 authors) first received the contribution disclosure form and then contribution importance-rating questionnaire; the second (n = 88 manuscripts, n = 382 authors) first received the rating questionnaire and then the contribution disclosure form, and the third group (n = 87 manuscripts, n = 395 authors) received both questionnaires at the same time. We compared authors' perception of importance of contribution categories.

RESULTS

1014 (85.9%) authors of 235 manuscripts responded. Authors who declared contribution to a specific category rated it as more important for authorship than those authors who did not contribute to the same category (P>0.005 for all contribution categories, Mann-Withney test). Authors qualifying for ICMJE authorship rated all contribution categories higher than non-qualifying authors. For all contributions, associations between perceived importance of contribution and actual author's contribution were statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Authorship seems to be not a normative issue subjective to categorization into criteria, but also a very personal view of the importance and value of one's contributions.

Quantification of authors' contributions and eligibility for authorship: randomized study in a general medical journal

BACKGROUND

Assessment of authorship contribution is often based on unreliable questionnaires.

OBJECTIVE

To assess if the use of different formats for the disclosure of authorship contributions influences authors' compliance with the criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

DESIGN

Randomized study.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Eight hundred sixty-five authors of 181 manuscripts submitted to the Croatian Medical Journal from January to July 2005 were randomly allocated into 2 groups: 456 authors (94 manuscripts) received an ordinal rating form to rate their contributions to the submitted manuscript in 12 categories on a scale from 0 (none) to 4 (full), whereas 409 authors (87 manuscripts) received a binary rating form to tick the categories in which they made a contribution.

RESULTS

The ordinal rating form identified twice as many authors (87.9%) as meeting the ICMJE criteria than the binary rating form (39.2%, P < .001). The group answering the ordinal rating form also had 5 times more manuscripts (71.6%) with all authors meeting the ICMJE criteria than the binary rating form group (15.5%, P < .001). The fraction of authors who reported contributions on each item on the binary rating form was similar to the fraction of authors who reported at least moderate participation to the same items on the ordinal rating form except "Final approval of the article."

CONCLUSIONS

Ordinal scales for reporting authors' contributions to manuscripts were more sensitive than tick boxes for assessing the appropriateness of authorship. The exception is "Final approval of the article," which should be considered a dichotomous variable and may not be appropriate for the ICMJE definition of authorship.

Measuring co-authorship and networking-adjusted scientific impact

Appraisal of the scientific impact of researchers, teams and institutions with productivity and citation metrics has major repercussions. Funding and promotion of individuals and survival of teams and institutions depend on publications and citations. In this competitive environment, the number of authors per paper is increasing and apparently some co-authors don't satisfy authorship criteria. Listing of individual contributions is still sporadic and also open to manipulation. Metrics are needed to measure the networking intensity for a single scientist or group of scientists accounting for patterns of co-authorship. Here, I define I₁ for a single scientist as the number of authors who appear in at least I₁ papers of the specific scientist. For a group of scientists or institution, I_n is defined as the number of authors who appear in at least I_n papers that bear the affiliation of the group or institution. I₁ depends on the number of papers authored N_p. The power exponent R of the relationship between I₁ and N_p categorizes scientists as solitary (R>2.5), nuclear (R = 2.25–2.5), networked (R = 2–2.25), extensively networked (R = 1.75–2) or collaborators (R<1.75). R may be used to adjust for co-authorship networking the citation impact of a scientist. I_n similarly provides a simple measure of the effective networking size to adjust the citation impact of groups or institutions. Empirical data are provided for single scientists and institutions for the proposed metrics. Cautious adoption of adjustments for co-authorship and networking in scientific appraisals may offer incentives for more accountable co-authorship behaviour in published articles.