Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship

Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.

Women are credited less in science than men

There is a well-documented gap between the observed number of works produced by women and by men in science, with clear consequences for the retention and promotion of women1. The gap might be a result of productivity differences2-5, or it might be owing to women's contributions not being acknowledged6,7. Here we find that at least part of this gap is the result of unacknowledged contributions: women in research teams are significantly less likely than men to be credited with authorship. The findings are consistent across three very different sources of data. Analysis of the first source-large-scale administrative data on research teams, team scientific output and attribution of credit-show that women are significantly less likely to be named on a given article or patent produced by their team relative to their male peers. The gender gap in attribution is present across most scientific fields and almost all career stages. The second source-an extensive survey of authors-similarly shows that women's scientific contributions are systematically less likely to be recognized. The third source-qualitative responses-suggests that the reason that women are less likely to be credited is because their work is often not known, is not appreciated or is ignored. At least some of the observed gender gap in scientific output may be owing not to differences in scientific contribution, but rather to differences in attribution.

Alphabetical ordering of author surnames in academic publishing: A detriment to teamwork

INTRODUCTION

In academia, many institutions use journal article publication productivity for making decisions on tenure and promotion, funding grants, and rewarding stellar scholars. Although non-alphabetical sequencing of article coauthoring by the spelling of surnames signals the extent to which a scholar has contributed to a project, many disciplines in academia follow the norm of alphabetical ordering of coauthors in journal publications. By assessing business academic publications, this study investigates the hypothesis that author alphabetical ordering disincentivizes teamwork and reduces the overall quality of scholarship.

METHODS

To address our objectives, we accessed data from 21,353 articles published over a 20-year period across the four main business subdisciplines. The articles selected are all those published by the four highest-ranked journals (in each year) and four lower-ranked journals (in each year) for accounting, business technology, marketing, and organizational behavior. Poisson regression and binary logistic regression were utilized for hypothesis testing.

RESULTS

This study finds that, although team size among business scholars is increasing over time, alphabetical ordering as a convention in journal article publishing disincentivizes author teamwork. This disincentive results in fewer authors per publication than for publications using contribution-based ordering of authors. Importantly, article authoring teamwork is related to article quality. Specifically, articles written by a single author typically are of lesser quality than articles published by coauthors, but the number of coauthors exhibits decreasing returns to scale-coauthoring teams of one to three are positively related to high-quality articles, but larger teams are not. Alphabetical ordering itself, however, is positively associated with quality even though it inhibits teamwork, but journal article coauthoring has a greater impact on article quality than does alphabetical ordering.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings have important implications for academia. Scholars respond to incentives, yet alphabetical ordering of journal article authors conflicts with what is beneficial for the progress of academic disciplines. Based on these findings, we recommend that, to drive the highest-quality research, teamwork should be incentivized-all fields should adopt a contribution-based journal article author-ordering convention and avoid author ordering based upon the spelling of surnames. Although this study was undertaken using articles from business journals, its findings should generalize across all academia.

Whose shoulders is health research standing on? Determining the key actors and contents of the prevailing biomedical research agenda

BACKGROUND

Conflicts of interest in biomedical research can influence research results and drive research agendas away from public health priorities. Previous agenda-setting studies share two shortfalls: they only account for direct connections between academic institutions and firms, as well as potential bias based on researchers' personal beliefs. This paper's goal is to determine the key actors and contents of the prevailing health and biomedical sciences (HBMS) research agenda, overcoming these shortfalls.

METHODS

We performed a bibliometric and lexical analysis of 95,415 scientific articles published between 1999 and 2018 in the highest impact factor journals within HBMS, using the Web of Science database and the CorText platform. HBMS's prevailing knowledge network of institutions was proxied with network maps where nodes represent affiliations and edges the most frequent co-authorships. The content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda was depicted through network maps of prevalent multi-terms found in titles, keywords, and abstracts.

RESULTS

The HBMS research agendas of large private firms and leading academic institutions are intertwined. The prevailing HBMS agenda is mostly based on molecular biology (40% of the most frequent multi-terms), with an inclination towards cancer and cardiovascular research (15 and 8% of the most frequent multi-terms, respectively). Studies on pathogens and biological vectors related to recent epidemics are marginal (1% of the most frequent multi-terms). Content of the prevailing HBMS research agenda prioritizes research on pharmacological intervention over research on socio-environmental factors influencing disease onset or progression and overlooks, among others, the study of infectious diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical corporations contribute to set HBMS's prevailing research agenda, which is mainly focused on a few diseases and research topics. A more balanced research agenda, together with epistemological approaches that consider socio-environmental factors associated with disease spreading, could contribute to being better prepared to prevent and treat more diverse pathologies and to improve overall health outcomes.

Highly prolific authors in medical science: from charisma to opportunism

In medical science, publication record is considered to be a fundamental criterion to evaluate the cost-effectiveness and the reputation of institutions and individual scientists. In current academia, thousands of scientists demonstrate a hyperprolific academic behavior that is the resultant of multiple individual characteristics that can vary from extraordinary ability and teamwork to unjustified and unethical co-authorship. Editors, reviewers and readers should have high expectations from these authors in terms of research quality and ethos.

Group authorships in Cochrane had low compliance with Cochrane recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Recently, group authorships have become more common. Group authorship describes a situation where the name of a group of people is included in the byline of an article. Historically, however, group authorships have been associated with citation errors and difficulties identifying who could be regarded as an author. Cochrane is a collaboration that publishes high-quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses and transparency in authorship should be high. Group authorships in Cochrane have not previously been examined. This study aimed to describe group authorships in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR).

METHODS

In total, 8396 reviews from the CDSR were screened for group authorships from inception to 31 December 2019. Data from group authorships were extracted and analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 41 reviews with group authorships were included. Almost half of group authorships (46%, 19/41) were published from 2015 to 2019. Median number of group members was 32 (range 6-91). Median publication time (protocol to review) of group authorships was 3.1 years. Of all group authorships, 39% met ICMJE's first authorship criterion, 41% met the second, and 12% met the third criterion. For only two studies all authors met the three authorship criteria.

CONCLUSION

A low prevalence of group authorships existed in Cochrane reviews. Reviews with group authorships took median three years to publish, and very few of group authorships in Cochrane complied with the ICMJE authorship criteria.

Academic criteria for promotion and tenure in biomedical sciences faculties: cross sectional analysis of international sample of universities

OBJECTIVE

To determine the presence of a set of pre-specified traditional and non-traditional criteria used to assess scientists for promotion and tenure in faculties of biomedical sciences among universities worldwide.

DESIGN

Cross sectional study.

SETTING

International sample of universities.

PARTICIPANTS

170 randomly selected universities from the Leiden ranking of world universities list.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Presence of five traditional (for example, number of publications) and seven non-traditional (for example, data sharing) criteria in guidelines for assessing assistant professors, associate professors, and professors and the granting of tenure in institutions with biomedical faculties.

RESULTS

A total of 146 institutions had faculties of biomedical sciences, and 92 had eligible guidelines available for review. Traditional criteria of peer reviewed publications, authorship order, journal impact factor, grant funding, and national or international reputation were mentioned in 95% (n=87), 37% (34), 28% (26), 67% (62), and 48% (44) of the guidelines, respectively. Conversely, among non-traditional criteria, only citations (any mention in 26%; n=24) and accommodations for employment leave (37%; 34) were relatively commonly mentioned. Mention of alternative metrics for sharing research (3%; n=3) and data sharing (1%; 1) was rare, and three criteria (publishing in open access mediums, registering research, and adhering to reporting guidelines) were not found in any guidelines reviewed. Among guidelines for assessing promotion to full professor, traditional criteria were more commonly reported than non-traditional criteria (traditional criteria 54.2%, non-traditional items 9.5%; mean difference 44.8%, 95% confidence interval 39.6% to 50.0%; P=0.001). Notable differences were observed across continents in whether guidelines were accessible (Australia 100% (6/6), North America 97% (28/29), Europe 50% (27/54), Asia 58% (29/50), South America 17% (1/6)), with more subtle differences in the use of specific criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that the evaluation of scientists emphasises traditional criteria as opposed to non-traditional criteria. This may reinforce research practices that are known to be problematic while insufficiently supporting the conduct of better quality research and open science. Institutions should consider incentivising non-traditional criteria.

STUDY REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/26ucp/?view_only=b80d2bc7416543639f577c1b8f756e44).

Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research

Ideally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.

Scientific publications in cancer: in Latin America, strong scientific networks increase productivity (the TENJIN study)

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study are to evaluate the relationship between authorship networking, socioeconomic factors, and scientific productivity across Latin America.

METHODS

In a bibliometric analysis of cancer-related Latin-American publications, the relationship between authorship network indicators, sociodemographic factors, and number of peer-reviewed indexed publications per country was explored. A systematic review of the literature for cancer publications between 2000 and 2018 using the Scopus database limited to Latin-American authors was used for the construction of coauthorship and publication networks and their respective metrics. Sociodemographic variables including percentage of invested gross domestic product in research, population, and cancer incidence were also estimated. Multiple linear regression models were constructed to determine the relationship between productivity and the aforementioned variables.

RESULTS

A total of 8,528 articles across nine countries were included. Brazil was the most productive nation with 41.8% of identified references followed by Mexico (16.6%) and Argentina (12.9%). Latin America experienced a 9% growth in number of publications across the studied time frame. After analyzing networking and sociodemographic variables, number of authors in a collaboration network and percentage of invested gross domestic product were associated with high productivity yielding a multiple regression model with an R2 value of 0.983.

CONCLUSIONS

This study indicates that extensive authorship networking and a high investment in research strongly predict cancer-related productivity.

Survey of equal contributions in biomedical research publications

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 1,540 researchers concerning their experiences with and attitudes toward the ethics of equal contribution (EC) designations in publications. Over half the respondents (58.3%) said they had been designated as an EC at least once. Although most respondents agreed that EC designations can be a useful way of promoting collaborations (81.7%) or resolving disagreements about authorship order (63.3%), a substantial proportion of respondents (38.1%) regarded these designations as useful but ethically questionable. 31.7% of respondents said EC designations are ethically questionable because ECs are difficult to define or measure and 25.9% said they are ethically questionable because people rarely contribute equally. Most respondents (71.8%) agreed that it is unfair to name two people as ECs when they have not contributed equally and that journals (73.4%), research teams (69.5%), and research institutions (63%) should develop policies concerning EC designations. Views concerning the ethics and policies of EC designations were influenced by the race/ethnicity and position of respondents but not by gender. Researchers who had been designated as ECs were less likely to regard this practice as ethically questionable than those who had not.

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.

Undisclosed Financial Conflicts of Interest of Authors of Clinical Drug Trials Published in Influential Medical Journals: A Cohort Study

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors requires authors to disclose all financial conflicts of interest (COI) that can be perceived as influencing the related trials. Undisclosed financial COI may influence the perception of the authors' scientific impartiality and erode the public trust in the reported results. Data regarding completeness of COI disclosure in high-impact-factor general medicine journals are limited. We compared payments disclosed by US-based physicians who were first or last authors of clinical drug trials published between August 2016 and August 2018 in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Lancet, to payments reported by industry to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. Of 247 included authors, 198 (80%) have not disclosed some or all received payments. The median undisclosed sum was $8409 (US Dollars) (interquartile range [IQR] $123 to $44,890). Most authors (n=170, 69%) have received more than $10,000 per year (median $120,403, IQR $58,905 to $242,014). The median undisclosed sum for these authors was $26,530 (IQR $7462 to $71,562). Median undisclosed sums for authors of papers from studies performed with and without industry funding were $20,899 (IQR $4191 to $59,883) and $149 (IQR $0 to $3276), respectively. In 10 (8%) of 125 industry-funded trials, the first or last author had not disclosed personal payments from the study sponsor (median $9741, IQR $4508 to $101,484). These findings could raise concerns about the authors' equipoise toward the trial results and influence the public perception of the credibility of reported data. Health care professionals, reviewers, and journal editors should demand more transparent reporting of financial COI.

Advancing research integrity: a programme to embed good practice in Africa

In Africa, training programmes as well as institutional policies on research integrity are lacking. Institutions have a responsibility to oversee research integrity through various efforts, including policies and training. We developed, implemented and evaluated an institutional approach to promote research integrity at African institutions, comprising a workshop for researchers ("bottom-up") and discussions with senior faculty on institutional policies ("top-down"). During the first day, we facilitated a workshop to introduce research integrity and promote best practices with regards to authorship, plagiarism, redundant publication and conflicts of interest. We used a variety of interactive teaching approaches to facilitate learning, including individual and group activities, small group discussions and case-based learning. We met with senior faculty on the following day to provide feedback and insights from the workshop, review current institutional policies and provide examples of what other research groups are doing. We evaluated the process. Participants actively engaged in discussions, recognised the importance of the topic and acknowledged that poor practices occurred at their institution. Discussions with senior researchers resulted in the establishment of a working group tasked with developing a publication policy for the institution. Our approach kick-started conversations on research integrity at institutions. There is a need for continued discussions, integrated training programmes and implementation of institutional policies and guidelines to promote good practices.

A standardized citation metrics author database annotated for scientific field

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. We have created a publicly available database of 100,000 top scientists that provides standardized information on citations, h-index, coauthorship-adjusted hm-index, citations to papers in different authorship positions, and a composite indicator. Separate data are shown for career-long and single-year impact. Metrics with and without self-citations and ratio of citations to citing papers are given. Scientists are classified into 22 scientific fields and 176 subfields. Field- and subfield-specific percentiles are also provided for all scientists who have published at least five papers. Career-long data are updated to end of 2017 and to end of 2018 for comparison.

Citation metrics are widely used and misused. This Community Page article presents a publicly available database that provides standardized information on multiple citation indicators and a composite thereof, annotating each author according to his/her main scientific field(s).

Authorship Considerations for Publishing in Pharmacy Education Journals

The distinction of authorship and its associated credit has important implications for academia. Pharmacy education encompasses faculty members from a wide and diverse range of disciplines, including the clinical, basic, and social sciences. These disciplines embody varying traditions and perspectives concerning who qualifies for authorship. As an academy, pharmacy education must do more to equip education researchers with the tools needed to navigate authorship decisions. The following commentary provides examples and recommendations concerning the issue of authorship within pharmacy education. We define authorship, examine authorship guidelines from health professions and education disciplines, and discuss authorship order. We then provide authorship recommendations for pharmacy education with the goal of supporting authorship decisions and further promoting discourse about authorship.

Productivity of CNPq Researchers from Different Fields in Biomedical Sciences: The Need for Objective Bibliometric Parameters-A Report from Brazil

In Brazil, the CNPq (National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) provides grants, funds and fellowships to productive scientists to support their investigations. They are ranked and categorized into four hierarchical levels ranging from PQ 1A (the highest) to PQ 1D (the lowest). Few studies, however, report and analyse scientific productivity in different sub-fields of Biomedical Sciences (BS), e.g., Biochemistry, Pharmacology, Biophysics and Physiology. In fact, systematic comparisons of productivity among the PQ 1 categories within the above sub-fields are lacking in the literature. Here, the scientific productivity of 323 investigators receiving PQ 1 fellowships (A to D levels) in these sub-fields of BS was investigated. The Scopus database was used to compile the total number of articles, citations, h-index values and authorship positions (first-, co- or last-listed author) in the most cited papers by researchers granted CNPq fellowships. We found that researchers from Pharmacology had the best performance for all of the parameters analysed, followed by those in Biochemistry. There was great variability in scientific productivity within the PQ 1A level in all of the sub-fields of BS, but not within the other levels (1B, 1C and 1D). Analysis of the most cited papers of PQ 1(A-D) researchers in Pharmacology revealed that the citations of researchers in the 1C and 1D levels were associated with publications with their senior supervisors, whereas those in the 1B level were less connected with their supervisors in comparison to those in 1A. Taken together, these findings suggest that the scientific performance of PQ 1A researchers in BS is not homogenous. In our opinion, parameters such as the most cited papers without the involvement of Ph.D. and/or post-doctoral supervisors should be used to make decisions regarding any given researcher's fellowship award level.

Writing the title, abstract, and keywords for a medical article: to be concise and accurate

The title and abstract are the first contact of a reader with a given article. Therefore, drafting these parts should be done carefully. The final version of the title and abstract is only made at the end of the process of manuscript writing. The title must be catchy for the reader so that he wants to read the whole article. It must also be simple, clear and informative. It can be descriptive, affirmative or interrogative. The title's length is 10 to 12 words reflecting the main information the article contains. If more information is needed, the author can add a subtitle. Articles with short titles are the most likely to be read and cited. The abstract is a condensed version of a scientific research and must be understood independently of the rest of the article. It gives to the reader an overall idea of the article, and conditions his decision to continue reading. The abstract can be structured or unstructured. Keywords are expressions reflecting the main aspects of the study. They allow the indexation of articles, and must be checked in the Medical subject headings. The main keywords should appear in the title.

Gift authorship: An approach to its frequency in a Peruvian journal

Introduction. Unjustified authorship or “gift authorship” is an inadequate practice of authorship that consists of naming as authors people who do not meet the authorship criteria. Reports of scientific research are often published as original articles in scientific journals and may present these inappropriate practices. Objectives. Determine the prevalence of gift authorship in original articles for publication. Materials and methods. Descriptive study in which the authorship contributions section of all the articles published between 2013 and the first quarter of 2017 in a Peruvian magazine was reviewed. Gift authorship was considered when an author did not meet at least one of the criteria established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Results. Of the 209 original articles published, 11 were excluded because they did not report authorship contributions. The prevalence of gift authorship was 53.5% (106). The critreria least met were the final approval of the manuscript (23.2%) and the writing and critical review of this manuscript. (16.8%). Conclusions. It is necessary that educational institutions train researchers to distinguish between authorship and contribution. In addition, it is necessary that the journals request and corroborate the reported contributions.

Text Recycling in Scientific Writing

Text recycling, often called "self-plagiarism", is the practice of reusing textual material from one's prior documents in a new work. The practice presents a complex set of ethical and practical challenges to the scientific community, many of which have not been addressed in prior discourse on the subject. This essay identifies and discusses these factors in a systematic fashion, concluding with a new definition of text recycling that takes these factors into account. Topics include terminology, what is not text recycling, factors affecting judgements about the appropriateness of text recycling, and visual materials.

It's Time to Wikify Clinical Documentation: How Collaborative Authorship Can Reduce the Burden and Improve the Quality of the Electronic Health Record

Electronic health records (EHRs) have become ubiquitous tools and represent the standard of care for 96% of hospitals and 86% of ambulatory physicians in the United States. With adoption of EHRs came the promise of improved efficiency, higher-quality care, and lower costs. Unfortunately, some clinicians are now spending twice as much time on documentation as they spend seeing patients, and the documentation paradigm of problem-oriented medical records is contributing to this imbalance. It is time to consider new innovations. The collaborative wiki format offers many opportunities to ease the burden of documentation as well as to increase the usefulness of the recorded clinical data. Wikis support multiple authorship, have built-in features to track edits and changes, allow for contextual linkages (e.g., linking medical problems to their treatment), and support new technologies such as application programming interfaces, which allow for safe and secure exchange of information. In this Perspective, the authors describe the rationale for considering this approach to clinical documentation and propose a pilot to learn about its effectiveness. They believe wiki-based documentation will become increasingly attractive, especially as new legislation and directives from policymakers seek to reduce the crushing documentation burden and as the U.S. health care system transitions from an episode-based payment structure to a value-based, outcomes-focused system.

Measuring researcher independence using bibliometric data: A proposal for a new performance indicator

Bibliometric indicators are increasingly used to evaluate individual scientists–as is exemplified by the popularity of the many other publication and citation-based indicators used in evaluation. These indicators, however, cover at best some of the quality dimensions relevant for assessing a researcher: productivity and impact. At the same time, research quality has more dimensions than productivity and impact alone. As current bibliometric indicators are not covering various important quality dimensions, we here contribute to developing better indicators for those quality dimensions not yet addressed. One of the quality dimensions lacking valid indicators is an individual researcher’s independence. We propose indicators to measure different aspects of independence: two assessing whether a researcher has developed an own collaboration network and two others assessing the level of thematic independence. Taken together they form an independence indicator. We illustrate how these indicators distinguish between researchers that are equally productive and have a considerable impact. The independence indicator is a step forward in evaluating individual scholarly quality.

Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study

INTRODUCTION

University ranking systems and the publish-or-perish dictum, among other factors, are driving universities and researchers around the world to increase their research productivity. Authors frequently report multiple affiliations in published articles. It is not known if the reported institutional affiliations are real affiliations, which is when the universities have contributed substantially to the research conducted and to the published manuscript. This study aims to establish whether there is an empirical basis for author affiliation misrepresentation in authors with multiple institutional affiliations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This individual secondary data exploratory analysis on Scopus-indexed articles for 2016 will search all authors who report multiple institutional affiliations in which at least one of the affiliations is to a Chilean university. We will consider that misrepresentation of an affiliation is more likely when it is not possible to verify objectively a link between the author and the mentioned institution through institutional websites. If we cannot corroborate the author affiliation, we will consider this a finding of potential misrepresentation of the affiliation. We will summarise results with descriptive statistics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of Universidad de Santiago de Chile, Resolution No. 261, and dated January 15, 2018. Results will be submitted to the World Conference on Research Integrity, among other meetings on publication ethics and research integrity, and will be published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

Can authorship bias be detected in meta-analysis?

PURPOSE

Statistical approaches have been developed to detect bias in individual trials, but guidance on how to detect systematic differences at a meta-analytical level is lacking. In this paper, we elucidate whether author bias can be detected in a cohort of randomized trials included in a meta-analysis.

METHODS

We utilized mortality data from 35 trials (10,880 patients) included in our previously published meta-analysis. First, we linked each author with their trial (or trials). Then we calculated author-specific odds ratios using univariate cross table methods. Finally, we tested the effect of authorship by comparing each author's estimated odds ratio with all other pooled estimated odds ratios using meta-regression.

RESULTS

The median number of investigators named as authors on the primary trial reports was six (interquartile range: 5-8, range: 2-32). The results showed that the slope of author effect for mortality ranged from - 1.35 to 0.71. We identified only one author team showing a marginally significant effect (- 0.39; 95% confidence interval, - 0.78 to 0.00). This author team has a history of retractions due to data manipulations and ethical violations.

CONCLUSION

When combining trial-level data to produce a pooled effect estimate, investigators must consider sources of potential bias. Our results suggest that systematic errors can be detected using meta-regression, although further research is needed to examine the sensitivity of this model. Systematic reviewers will benefit from the availability of methods to guard against the dissemination of results with the potential to mislead decision-making.

Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

PURPOSE

To maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas deliberate scientific misconduct such as data fabrication is clearly unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported misconduct and QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers.

METHOD

In 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in a variety of irresponsible research behaviors. The items were adapted from previously published surveys.

RESULTS

In total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD = 11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported irresponsible research behaviors were adding authors who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one irresponsible behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of misconduct and QRPs. Consequently, reforms may be needed to improve the conduct of HPE research.

Ethical Shades of Gray: International Frequency of Scientific Misconduct and Questionable Research Practices in Health Professions Education

PURPOSE

To maintain scientific integrity and engender public confidence, research must be conducted responsibly. Whereas deliberate scientific misconduct such as data fabrication is clearly unethical, other behaviors-often referred to as questionable research practices (QRPs)-exploit the ethical shades of gray that color acceptable practice. This study aimed to measure the frequency of self-reported misconduct and QRPs in a diverse, international sample of health professions education (HPE) researchers.

METHOD

In 2017, the authors conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional survey study. The web-based survey contained 43 items that asked respondents to rate how often they had engaged in a variety of irresponsible research behaviors. The items were adapted from previously published surveys.

RESULTS

In total, 590 HPE researchers took the survey. The mean age was 46 years (SD = 11.6), and the majority of participants were from the United States (26.4%), Europe (23.2%), and Canada (15.3%). The three most frequently reported irresponsible research behaviors were adding authors who did not qualify for authorship (60.6%), citing articles that were not read (49.5%), and selectively citing papers to please editors or reviewers (49.4%). Additionally, respondents reported misrepresenting a participant's words (6.7%), plagiarizing (5.5%), inappropriately modifying results (5.3%), deleting data without disclosure (3.4%), and fabricating data (2.4%). Overall, 533 (90.3%) respondents reported at least one irresponsible behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

Notwithstanding the methodological limitations of survey research, these findings indicate that a substantial proportion of HPE researchers report a range of misconduct and QRPs. Consequently, reforms may be needed to improve the conduct of HPE research.

Integrity of Authorship and Peer Review Practices: Challenges and Opportunities for Improvement

Integrity of authorship and peer review practices are important considerations for ethical publishing. Criteria for authorship, as delineated in the guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), have undergone evolution over the decades, and now require fulfillment of four criteria, including the need to be able to take responsibility for all aspects of the manuscript in question. Although such updated authorship criteria were published nearly five years ago, still, many major medical and specialist journals have yet to revise their author instructions to conform to this. Inappropriate authorship practices may include gift, guest or ghost authorship. Existing literature suggests that such practices are still widely prevalent, especially in non-English speaking countries. Another emerging problem is that of peer review fraud, mostly by authors, but also rarely by handling editors. There is literature to suggest that a proportion of such fake peer review may be driven by the support of some unscrupulous external editing agencies. Such inappropriate practices with authorship malpractices or disagreement, or peer review fraud, have resulted in more than 600 retractions each, as identified on the retractions database of Retractionwatch.com. There is a need to generate greater awareness, especially in authors from non-English speaking regions of the world, about inappropriate authorship and unethical practices in peer review. Also, support of any external editing agency should be clearly disclosed by authors at the time of submission of a manuscript.

Interprofessional Collaboration: The Future of Publishing in Oncology

OBJECTIVES

To explore avenues for establishing or expanding interprofessional (IP) collaboration, to provide guidance on authoring IP oncology publications, and to highlight platforms for IP publishing.

DATA SOURCES

Journal articles, organizational guidelines, panel reports, and personal experience.

CONCLUSION

As health care becomes an increasingly IP field, publications authored by IP groups will become more common, and additional platforms for IP publication will be created. IP publications may ultimately replace some of the traditional, single-profession-focused publications in print today.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

Oncology care is ideally delivered by IP teams. In collaboration with this team, oncology nurses can identify topics suitable for publication, publish in IP journals, and tailor publications to be accessible and applicable to an IP audience.

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be.

Whose Paper Is It Anyway? Authorship Criteria According to Established Scholars in Health Professions Education

PURPOSE

The health professions education (HPE) community is a crossroad of scholars from various disciplines with potentially conflicting views on who qualifies as author. Established HPE scholars are expected to model ethical research conduct, but no research has investigated the extent to which authorship criteria are understood and applied by leaders in the field. This study investigated what leading scholars consider appropriate criteria for authorship and how often these criteria are ignored.

METHOD

Directors of research and editors of HPE journals completed an anonymous survey between September 2015 and August 2016 with questions about authorship practices they experienced and recommended, common authorship criteria, and how often they had encountered unethical authorship decisions.

RESULTS

Out of 82 invited scholars, 46 participated in the survey (response rate = 56.0%). They reported a stark contrast between current and recommended authorship practices. Twenty-two (51.2%) had experienced unethical pressure regarding authorship order, 15 (34.9%) had not been included as author when they qualified, and 25 (58.1%) had seen authors included who did not qualify. A slight majority (n = 25; 58.1%) correctly identified authorship standards widely adopted by biomedical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

A surprising proportion of leaders in the HPE field had encountered unethical authorship practices. Despite widely disseminated authorship criteria, the findings suggest that offering authorship to those who do not qualify, or arguably worse, excluding those who should have been included, remains a common practice. The authors offer strategies to scholars, editors, and tenure and promotion committees to combat these practices.