Posted (theotim) in Non classé on September-2-2019

A starting point for a discussion of authorship is the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. In 1978, a group that is small of of general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references produced by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group evolved and expanded to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which meets annually. The ICMJE gradually has broadened its concerns to include ethical principles related to publication in biomedical journals. Over time, ICMJE has issued updated versions of what exactly are called Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and other statements relating to policy that is editorial. The essential update that is recent in November 2003. Approximately 500 biomedical journals subscribe into the guidelines.

Based on the ICMJE guidelines:

The Schцn Case: Taking responsibility for others’ work
find out more

  • Authorship credit ought to be centered on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of information, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important content that is intellectual and 3) final approval regarding the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
  • When a sizable, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. Him or her should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask him or her to complete journal-specific author and conflict of great interest disclosure forms. When submitting a bunch author manuscript, the author that is corresponding clearly indicate the most well-liked citation and should clearly identify all individual authors along with the group name. Journals will generally list other people in the group into the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the combined group name together with names of people the group has defined as being directly accountable for the manuscript.
  • Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of this research group, alone, will not justify authorship.
  • Each author needs to have participated sufficiently into the work to take responsibility that is public appropriate portions for the content.
  • Your order of authorship from the byline must be a decision that is joint of co-authors. Authors should be willing to explain the order by which authors are listed.
  • All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship ought to be placed in an acknowledgments section.

C. Difficulties with ICMJE recommendations

Two major issues with the ICMJE guidelines are that many people in the scientific community are unacquainted with them and lots of scientists try not to sign up for them. Based on Stanford University’s Mildred Cho and Martha McKee, writing in Science’s Next Wave in 2002, a 1994 study revealed that 21% of authors of basic science papers and 30% of authors of clinical studies had no involvement in the conception or design of a project, the design associated with scholarly study, the analysis and interpretation of data, or perhaps the writing or revisions. Actual practice, it seems, disagrees with ICMJE recommendations.

Eugene Tarnow, writing in Science and Ethics in 2002, reports findings related towards the 1994 study. He cited a 1992 study of 1,000 postdoctoral fellows at the University of California, san francisco bay area, in write my paper which less than half knew about any university, school, laboratory, or departmental guidelines for research and publication. Half thought that being head regarding the laboratory was sufficient for authorship, and slightly fewer believed that getting funding was enough for authorship.

A study by Tarnow of postdoctoral fellows in physics in the 1990s also shows divergences from ICMJE precepts and points with other concerns about authorship in the sciences. Tarnow discovered that 74% of the postdoctoral fellows failed to recognize the American Physical Society’s guidelines or thought it absolutely was vague or available to multiple interpretations. Half the respondents thought the rules suggested that obtaining funding was sufficient for authorship, even though the other half did not. The findings also revealed that in 75% of the postdoc-supervisor relationships authorship criteria was not discussed; in 61% the postdoc’s criteria were not “clearly agreed upon”; plus in 70% of this relationships the criteria for designating other authors was not “clearly agreed upon.”

Clearly, different laboratories have different practices about who should always be included as an author on a paper. At some institutions, it’s quite common for heads of departments to be listed as authors, as so-called “guest authors” or “gift authors,” although they never have directly contributed to the research. At other institutions, laboratory heads would routinely include as authors technicians who may have performed many experiments but may not have made an important intellectual contribution to a paper, while others would give a technician only an acknowledgment at the end of a paper. Some academic supervisors may have their graduate students collect data, do research, and jot down results, yet not provide them with credit on a paper, while some will provide authorship credit to students. Some foreigners in the United States may feel obligated to place mentors from their home countries on a paper and even though they did not be involved in the study.

Alternatives to ICMJE

Another problem using the ICMJE guidelines which have come up is the fact that each author may not be in a position to take responsibility that is full the totality of a paper. In a day and time of increasing specialization, one person knowing all of the statistical analyses and methodology that is scientific went into getting results can be unlikely. As a result, some journals, for instance the British Medical Journal and Lancet, have turned out of the concept of an author and instead think in terms of a person who is ready to take responsibility for the content of this paper. The Journal regarding the American Medical Association also now requires authors to submit an application attesting to the nature of the contribution to a paper.

The British Medical Journal says that listing authorship according to ICMJE guidelines does not clarify that is in charge of overall content and excludes those whose contribution happens to be the number of data. The journal lists contributors in two ways: it publishes the authors’ names at the beginning of the paper, and lists contributors, some of whom may not be included as authors, at the end, and provides details of who planned, conducted, and reported the work as a result. One or more associated with the contributors are thought “guarantors” of this paper. The guarantor must make provision for a written statement that he or she accepts full responsibility for the conduct associated with study, had usage of the information, and controlled your decision to publish. BMJ says that researchers must determine among themselves the particular nature of each and every person’s contribution, and encourages discussion that is open all participants.

American Psychological Association excerpt on publications.
read the excerpt

A clause concerning contributorship: “Editors are strongly encouraged to produce and implement a contributorship policy, in addition to an insurance policy on identifying that is accountable for the integrity of this act as an entire. with additional knowing of the issue, ICMJE now has in its guidelines”

E. Other authorship responsibilities

Besides clarifying the matter of that is an author and who deserves credit for work, an author has its own other responsibilities (what exactly is the following has been adapted from Michael Kalichman’s educational material for the University of California, north park):

Checklist for Authors from Science’s Next Wave
read more

  • Good writing: Authors must write well and explain methods, data analysis and conclusions so they can be understood by a reader and be able to replicate findings. Charts, tables and graphs must additionally be clear.
  • Accuracy: Although every effort must certanly be designed to not need mistakes in a paper, be they in a footnote or through the research itself, unintentional errors creep in. Authors should really be careful.
  • Context and citations: The author has to put research into appropriate context and supply citations into the manuscript that both agree and disagree utilizing the work.
  • Publishing negative results: If researchers never publish negative results, it creates a false impression and biases the literature. If answers are not published from a drug trial, as an example, that either shows a medication does not work or has negative effects, clinicians reviewing the literature could get the wrong idea concerning the medication’s value that is true. Because of this, other researchers may continue with studies about a drug that is potentially bad.

Post a comment