Search

Authorship criteria can be difficult to apply in complex situations, such as multicenter clinical trials, multidisciplinary research, or manuscripts reporting the results of several studies. Authors may need additional guidance to appropriately credit their colleagues even when using existing accepted author criteria and/or contributor taxonomies to guide their decisions. Definitions and explanations of authorship by various editorial groups such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors emphasize intellectual input and accountability. Existing contributor taxonomies list additional activities that should be credited, but do not stand in for authorship criteria or confer authorship. The literature was searched for existing guidelines for authors that suggest how to apply accepted authorship criteria to activities listed in contributor taxonomies. No publication was identified that mapped specific authorship criteria to particular contributor taxonomies. Suggestions were developed to assist in differentiating activities that meet author criteria from other contributions outlined in two existing contributor taxonomies. The teams that conduct and publish medical and scientific research must decide who should be listed as an author on articles and other publications. Even though journal editors provide author guidelines, members of research teams can disagree about how to use them. Certain problems occur when studies are done by large groups of researchers or by experts who do different kinds of research. This paper suggests some ways to use the guidelines from major editorial groups like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors. The guidelines are compared and explained, and then a specific process is outlined for using these guidelines. Charts were made to show authors how to match possible contributions to some specific author guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many biomedical journals follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations and criteria for authorship. ICMJE criterion 1 provides the basis for selecting authors according to their substantial contributions to the work reported in the publication. Identifying substantial contributions and their application for author selection can be challenging, especially for multicenter studies with large numbers of investigators and contributors. Contributions are not frequently documented during study conduct and authorship decisions may lack transparency, objectivity, and context. The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Authorship Task Force surveyed members on authorship practices, reviewed the literature defining substantial contributions to ICMJE criterion 1, and assessed existing tools or algorithms for determining authorship in industry-sponsored research. Contributions were categorized under the four sub-categories of ICMJE criterion 1: study concept and design, acquisition of data, data analysis, and data interpretation. Survey findings and literature review confirmed the need for clear and consistent interpretation, application, and documentation of ICMJE criterion 1 for transparent decisions about authorship. The Task Force reached consensus on definitions of substantial contributions to be considered when selecting authors of industry-sponsored research. The subsequent recommendations were grouped according to the sub-categories of ICMJE criterion 1. In addition, the Task Force developed recommendations regarding contributions that do not merit authorship designation. The Task Force recommendations for objective and consistent interpretation of ICMJE criterion 1 will facilitate an author selection process grounded in the core principles of substantial intellectual contribution to the work's conception or design, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. While these recommendations are focused on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research, they may be applicable to publications in other areas of scientific and biomedical research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), those who make significant intellectual contributions to a research project, and accept indirect responsibility for the entirety of the work should be listed as authors. All other contributors should be merely acknowledged. I argue that the ICMJE policy is unjust by consequentialist, deontological, and common sense standards. Because different sorts of contributions are incommensurable, ranking contributions is usually impossible. In particular, privileging intellectual contributions, and banishing non-intellectual contributions (e.g. funding, administration, routine data collection) to the Acknowledgments section is unfair to non-intellectual contributors. Holding contributors responsible for the errors or misconduct of others is also unjust. Contributors should be blamed (and sometimes punished) for all and only their own errors or misconduct. Their punishment should be proportional to the harm done; their blame to the ease with which their errors and misconduct could have been avoided. The ICMJE policy goes wrong by using the outdated, overly constraining practice of authorship as a vehicle for allocation of credit and responsibility. My alternative policy would replace the author byline and Acknowledgment sections of articles with Contributors pages listing all contributors to the research project, along with descriptions of their contributions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of transparency with financial ties in biomedical research is widely recognized, and most peer-reviewed journals require declarations of Conflicts of Interest (COI). Nonetheless, variability in the consistency of declarations of COI has been sparsely assessed. To assess consistency and rates of COI declarations in the ophthalmic literature and the effectiveness of journal COI policies. We analyzed consistency and completeness of declaration of COI in the ophthalmic literature and compared the levels of completeness to specific journal requirements. Six-hundred forty-two peer reviewed articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. In 64%, COIs were unreported, in 25% declaration of COI was incomplete, and 11% of the articles reviewed had complete declaration of COI. Of the 33 journals in which the most frequently published authors’ articles appeared, 10 required the authors to complete the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) form or an equivalent form, but this did not affect the rates of COI declaration. In a random sampling of the most frequently published authors in the field of ophthalmology, declaration of COI was low and highly inconsistent. Requiring a standardized COI form has no significant effect on the rate of accurate COI reporting. Our findings lend support to the growing body of literature that shows that journals and editors may need to take a more active role in ensuring accurate and consistent COI reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The most important part of a biomedical scientific manuscript is undeniably the research data. Yet, scientists generate and validate that data, culminating, in most cases, in a scientific manuscript. Thus, authorship, specifically the contributions and attributed responsibilities of the authors, remains a central issue in science publishing. This article examines the definitions of authorship as defined by four publishing organizations—the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Council of Scientific Editors (CSE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)—and 15 science, technology, and medicine (STM) publishers. The objective is to understand whether there is consistency among definitions. Five of these STM publishers rely specifically on the ICMJE definitions of authorship, while 12/15 are COPE members. The clarity, logic, realism, feasibility, and enforceability of these definitions will be discussed. Our analysis reveals that authorship definitions are inconsistent among the 15 STM publishers. Scientists have the inherent right to determine who is an author of an article according to the ethical guidelines of their institutes, but these may differ from the guidelines indicated by publishers, while editors and publishers have the right to verify authorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although popular, I argue that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) account of authorship is flawed. It inadvertently allows for practices that it was designed to prevent. In addition, it creates a new category of authorless papers—orphan papers. The original World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) criterion is preferable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]