Search

There are ample national, transnational, and international geopolitical conflicts around the world, the two most prominent likely being the current ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, and the conflict between Taiwan (the Republic of China) and China (the People's Republic of China). To avoid criticism or the label of political bias, academics might refrain from using the term Taiwan or might not refer to it as a country. Similarly, they might not know whether they should refer to Crimea or the Donbas as being Ukrainian or Russian. Authors currently have little guidance and are somewhat left to their own devices when it comes to referring to these and other locations and territories, uncertain of the names that should be used to indicate them. They might also observe disclaimers on publishers' websites, in the footer of editorial board pages, or even as a small notice in their own manuscripts placed there by the publisher that distance the publisher from geopolitical conflicts and/or territorial claims, claiming neutrality, independent of whether those papers mention those conflicts, or not. Such disclaimers might be perceived as self-serving, placing the onus of responsibility of the choice of territorial term on authors' shoulders, so publishers should offer clearer advice to authors and editors on how to better handle this issue, that is, how to accurately name locations in geopolitically sensitive areas. There is a risk that papers that are insufficiently sensitive to such issues may be labelled as erroneous, and subjected to correction or retraction, or the authors may be subjected to public criticism or humiliation, so resolving this issue falls within the realm of academic publishing ethics. Currently, very little advice exists for geopolitical issues in the Committee on Publication Ethics and International Committee of Medical Journal Ethics ethics-related publishing guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key points: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations for authorship are the dominant guidelines that guide who, and under what circumstances, an individual can be an author of an academic paper.Large language models (LLMs) and AI, like ChatGPT, given their ability and versatility, pose a challenge to the human‐based authorship model.Several journals and publishers have already prohibited the assignment of authorship to AI, LLMs, and even ChatGPT, not recognizing them as valid authors.We debate this premise, and asked ChatGPT to opine on this issue. ChatGPT considers itself as an invalid author.We applied the CRediT criteria to AI, finding that it was definitively able to satisfy three out of the 14 criteria, but only in terms of assistance. This was validated by ChatGPT itself. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: When authorship disputes arise in academic publishing, research institutions may be asked to investigate the circumstances. We evaluated the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution involved. Methods: We measured trust using a newly validated Opinion on the Institution's Research and Publication Values (OIRPV) scale (range 1–4). Mayer and Davies' Organizational Trust for Management Instrument served as control. Association between publication misconduct, gender, institution type, policies, and OIRPV-derived Trust Scores were evaluated. Results: A total of 197 responses were analyzed. Increased reporting of authorship misconduct, such as gift authorship, author displacement within the authors' order on the byline, and ghost authorship, were associated with low Trust Scores (P<0.001). Respondents from institutions whose administration had made known (declared or published) their policy on authorship in academic publications awarded the highest Trust Scores (median 3.06, interquartile range 2.25 to 3.56). Only 17.8% favored their administration as the best authority to investigate authorship dispute honestly. Of those who did not list the administration as their preferred option for resolving disputes, 58.6% (95/162) provided a Trust Score <2.5, which conveys mistrust in the institution. Conclusions: Increased reporting of publication misconducts such as gift authorship, author displacement within the order of the authors' byline, and ghost authorship was associated with lower Trust Scores in the research institutions. Institutions that made their policies known were awarded the highest Trust Scores. Our results question whether the research institutions' administrations are the appropriate authority for clarifying author disputes in all cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing complexity and multidisciplinarity of scientific research make teamwork a necessity. Research teams are getting larger, which means that the number of authors reported in publications is also increasing. This generates debates in the scientific community about the meaning and recognition of authorship. This paper presents selected authorship issues that may not be known outside the medical and related sciences community.

Introduction: When authorship disputes arise in academic publishing, research institutions may be asked to investigate the circumstances. We evaluated the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution involved. Methods: We measured trust using a newly validated Opinion on the Institution’s Research and Publication Values (OIRPV) scale (range 1–4). Mayer and Davies’ Organizational Trust for Management Instrument served as control. Association between publication misconduct, gender, institution type, policies, and OIRPV-derived Trust Scores were evaluated. Results: A total of 197 responses were analyzed. Increased reporting of authorship misconduct, such as gift authorship, author displacement within the authors’ order on the byline, and ghost authorship, were associated with low Trust Scores (P

Manuscript writing support services using AI technology have become increasingly available in recent years. In keeping with this trend, we need to sort out issues related to authorship in academic writing. Authorship is attached to the contribution of researchers who report innovative research, the originality of which forms the core of their identity. The most important originality is demonstrated in the discussion of study findings. In the discussion section of this paper, we argue that if a researcher uses AI-based manuscript writing support to draft the discussion section, this does not necessarily diminish the researcher’s originality. Rather, AI support may allow the researcher to perform creative work in a more refined fashion. Presumably, selecting which AI support to use or evaluating and properly adjusting AI would still remain an important aspect of research for researchers. It is thus reasonable to view a researcher as a cooperative existence realized through a network of cooperative work that includes the use of AI. Discussions on this topic will be scientifically and socially important as AI technology advances in the future.

Abstract Background Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I 2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ .

Effective 30 June 2021, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, ICMJE, has updated its disclosure form. It is now public on ICMJE’s web page, and member journals have started using the form. In the ICMJE, editors of general medical journals discuss and adopt proposals to address important problems in medical publishing, such as authorship definition, trial registration, data sharing, and the declaration of conflict of interest. All of ICMJE’s proposals are summarized in the “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals”, a 19-page document containing advice on a wide variety of topics related to manuscript writing and publishing.

Manuscript writing support services using AI technology have become increasingly available in recent years. In keeping with this trend, we need to sort out issues related to authorship in academic writing. Authorship is attached to the contribution of researchers who report innovative research, the originality of which forms the core of their identity. The most important originality is demonstrated in the discussion of study findings. In the discussion section of this paper, we argue that if a researcher uses AI-based manuscript writing support to draft the discussion section, this does not necessarily diminish the researcher's originality. Rather, AI support may allow the researcher to perform creative work in a more refined fashion. Presumably, selecting which AI support to use or evaluating and properly adjusting AI would still remain an important aspect of research for researchers. It is thus reasonable to view a researcher as a cooperative existence realized through a network of cooperative work that includes the use of AI. Discussions on this topic will be scientifically and socially important as AI technology advances in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Edsel B Ing University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, CanadaCorrespondence: Edsel B IngMichael Garron Hospital, 650 Sammon Ave, K306, Toronto, ON, M4C 5M5, CanadaTel +1 416 465-7900Fax +1 416 385-3880Email edingLidStrab@gmail.comBackground: Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor–mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 medical journals. However, the binary ICMJEc have not yet been quantified.Aim: To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims.Methods: The four ICMJEc were separated into the nine authorship components of conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation of data, draft, revision, final approval and accountability. In spring 2021, members of an international association of medical editors rated the importance of each authorship component using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no importance) to 10 (most important). The median component scores were used to calibrate the pairwise comparisons in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP priority weights were multiplied against a four-level perceived effort/capability grade to calculate an authorship score.Results: Sixty-six decision-making medical editors completed the survey. The components had the median scores/AHP weights: conception 7.5/5.3%; design 8/8.9%; data acquisition 7/3.6%; data analysis 7/3.6%; interpretation of data 8/8.9%; draft 8/8.9%; revision 8/8.9%; final approval 9/20.1%; and accountability 10/31.8%, with Kruskal–Wallis Chi2 = 65.11, p < 0.001.Conclusion: The editors rated accountability as the most important component of authorship, followed by the final approval of the manuscript; data acquisition had the lowest median importance score for authorship. The scoring rubric (https://tinyurl.com/eyu86y96) transforms the binary tetrad ICMJEc into 9 quantifiable components of authorship, providing a transparent method to objectively assess authorship contributions, determine authorship order and potentially decrease the abuse of authorship. If desired, individual journals can survey their editorial boards and use the AHP method to derive customized weightings for an ICMJEc-based authorship index.Keywords: authorship, ICMJE, academic medicine, ethics, medical editors, analytic hierarchy process, survey

Background: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are two internationally recognised organisations in the field of publication ethics. Guidelines from these two organisations were updated in 2018.Objectives: To assess the extent to which the journal Pharmactuel is compliant with the guidelines on publication ethics updated by ICMJE and COPE in 2018 and, where the journal is found wanting, to take the necessary steps to make it compliant.Methods: A list of updated criteria – 56 by ICMJE and 22 by COPE – was compiled. In January 2020, compliance with each of these criteria was evaluated by the editor-in-chief and validated by all six associate editors. The evaluation was followed by an action plan to improve compliance, and the evaluation was repeated in November 2020.Results: Of the 56 ICMJE criteria, Pharmactuel was fully compliant with 31 and partly compliant with 10 criteria (a compliance rate of 73%, taking the two together). The corresponding figures for the 22 COPE criteria were 17, 3, and 91%. By modifying its editorial policies, training its associate editors, and creating appropriate guidelines for its editorial board and editors, Pharmactuel achieved almost 100% compliance by the end of 2020.Conclusions: Pharmactuel has been fully compliant with ICMJE and COPE recommendations since January 2021. Minor modifications to Pharmactuel’s publication process have enabled the editorial team to ensure that the journal continues to be almost totally compliant with COPE and ICMJE guidelines and to uphold its high ethical standards.

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]

More than 800 (co-)authors participated in a large-scale cross-sectional survey on inappropriate attribution of authorship and the use of explicit authorship guidelines in psychological science (response rate 29.6%, predominantly from Europe and North America). Almost half of the respondents had been involved in a study where someone was added as an author who did not contribute substantially (gift authorship) at least a few times. Being involved in a study where someone was not listed as an author when they contributed substantially (ghost authorship) was experienced considerably less frequently. In approximately half of the respondents’ research settings, the use of explicit authorship guidelines is actively encouraged, leading to more frequent discussion of authorship in earlier stages, as well as to the perception of authorship decisions as fairer. Encouraging the use of explicit authorship guidelines is a simple yet effective intervention. Importantly, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) authorship guidelines are considerably more lenient than the widely used criteria of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How can we represent scientific contributions in articles through categories? The scientific contributions' identification in articles is relevant with regard to issues such as authorship credit, transparency, and responsibility. The major medical journals have adopted the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) to indicate the contributions in publications. However, the nomenclature of these contributions is different for each one, making it difficult to identify them when compared between journals. We analyze contributions list from 2024 articles with 20,098 authors, published in three mainstream medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, Journal of the American Medical Association, and PLoS Medicine. This study presents two main findings. First, a system grouping scientific contributions with seven categories divided into two groups: (1) Theory; and (2) Methodology and Logistics. Theory is composed of the following contributions: Study Concept, Study Supervision, Critical Revision and Funding and/or Support. While Methodology and Logistics have: Original Draft, Statistical Analysis, and Data Collection. Second, the major contributions are related to the categories related to the theoretical (Theory) argument of the articles, showing that these authors are the most experienced. Already Methodology and Logistics are essential to the application of theoretical concepts and support, representing substantial contributions. Thus, the grouping of the proposed categories can help authors to identify and indicate their contributions in articles more clearly, balancing the ethical issues related to the attribution of authorship to researchers. We also present a equivalence table to contribution categories between the three journals analyzed in this study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: The correct determination of the authorship in a scholarly work is one of the major dimensions of intellectual property and plays a very important role in the assessment of the scientific outputs of countries, organizations and individuals. Therefore, the main objective of this study was identifying effective factors in determining authorship from the viewpoints of the researchers of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences.Material and Methods: The present study was carried out using qualitative research method and semi-structured interviews. The study population consisted of faculty members, editors-in-chief, editors of journals, reviewers of manuscripts and dissertations, researchers, and graduated students of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. The sampling was done by purposive sampling method. The interview was conducted with 27 eligible participants. The guidebook for interviewing was based on the Delvine-Gray study. The MAXQDA v10 software was used to analyze the findings.Results: Findings of this study showed that the majority of the participants believed that, in addition to mentioning the names of those who have acquired to be an author, other factors (according to the rules and conventions governing the community), including the relationships between individuals, officials and personalities of individuals, facilitating the publication of a paper, monetary issues and hypothetical contracts between individuals, make the name of others included in the article.Conclusion: The results of this study raise concerns that long-term relationships and interests between individuals may violate the principle of quality and scientific values of researchers and scientific works.

Objectives: Data sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting and represent a step toward data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. We aimed to assess the requirement for data sharing statements of individual participant data by biomedical journals and explore associations between journal characteristics and journal requirements for data sharing statements., Study Design and Setting: In this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements., Results: Of the 3229 biomedical journals included in the analysis, 2345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43-4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78-3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were open access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81., Conclusion: Despite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of the biomedical journals that published clinical trials did not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest All authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The article, devoted to the 20th anniversary of the journal “Avicenna Bulletin”, reflects the historical background of its creation, tells about the contribution of those scientists who were in the first series of the journal. Information on the main stages of the formation of Avicenna Bulletin is given. In 1999, the journal was registered by the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Tajikistan (No. 464 of January 5, 1999) and re-registered on 12.11.2018, No. 084/97. Since 2003, the journal has been included in the “List ...” of the Higher Attestation Commission of Russia. Since 2008, Avicenna Bulletin has been presented in the Russian Scientific Citation Index (RSCI). It should be noted that the journal’s two-year impact factor increased from 0.02 in 2013 to 0.453 by 2018, i.e. 22 times, and the growth of the five-year impact factor during the same period amounted from 0.024 to 0.320, i.e. 13 times. In 2009, the journal was assigned the International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). During 20 years of its existence on the pages of Avicenna Bulletin were published 1641 articles including 1343 works submitted by Tajik researchers and 298 articles by foreign scientists. In 2017, Avicenna Bulletin joined the Publishers International Linking Association (PILA), and each article is assigned a unique identification number – DOI (Digital Object Identifier). To date, Avicenna’s Bulletin adheres to the “Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals” formulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), as well as the provisions developed and approved by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). In the year of its anniversary, Avicenna Bulletin will continue the glorious traditions based on the principles of objectivity, transparency, goodwill, demanding, and ethics, and will also intensify efforts to improve its internal and external content.

Abstract Background Discrepancies between pre-specified and reported outcomes are an important source of bias in trials. Despite legislation, guidelines and public commitments on correct reporting from journals, outcome misreporting continues to be prevalent. We aimed to document the extent of misreporting, establish whether it was possible to publish correction letters on all misreported trials as they were published, and monitor responses from editors and trialists to understand why outcome misreporting persists despite public commitments to address it. Methods We identified five high-impact journals endorsing Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) (New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Journal of the American Medical Association, British Medical Journal, and Annals of Internal Medicine) and assessed all trials over a six-week period to identify every correctly and incorrectly reported outcome, comparing published reports against published protocols or registry entries, using CONSORT as the gold standard. A correction letter describing all discrepancies was submitted to the journal for all misreported trials, and detailed coding sheets were shared publicly. The proportion of letters published and delay to publication were assessed over 12 months of follow-up. Correspondence received from journals and authors was documented and themes were extracted. Results Sixty-seven trials were assessed in total. Outcome reporting was poor overall and there was wide variation between journals on pre-specified primary outcomes (mean 76% correctly reported, journal range 25–96%), secondary outcomes (mean 55%, range 31–72%), and number of undeclared additional outcomes per trial (mean 5.4, range 2.9–8.3). Fifty-eight trials had discrepancies requiring a correction letter (87%, journal range 67–100%). Twenty-three letters were published (40%) with extensive variation between journals (range 0–100%). Where letters were published, there were delays (median 99 days, range 0–257 days). Twenty-nine studies had a pre-trial protocol publicly available (43%, range 0–86%). Qualitative analysis demonstrated extensive misunderstandings among journal editors about correct outcome reporting and CONSORT. Some journals did not engage positively when provided correspondence that identified misreporting; we identified possible breaches of ethics and publishing guidelines. Conclusions All five journals were listed as endorsing CONSORT, but all exhibited extensive breaches of this guidance, and most rejected correction letters documenting shortcomings. Readers are likely to be misled by this discrepancy. We discuss the advantages of prospective methodology research sharing all data openly and pro-actively in real time as feedback on critiqued studies. This is the first empirical study of major academic journals’ willingness to publish a cohort of comparable and objective correction letters on misreported high-impact studies. Suggested improvements include changes to correspondence processes at journals, alternatives for indexed post-publication peer review, changes to CONSORT’s mechanisms for enforcement, and novel strategies for research on methods and reporting.

Background: The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are two internationally recognised organisations in the field of publication ethics. Guidelines from these two organisations were updated in 2018. Objectives: To assess the extent to which the journal Pharmactuel is compliant with the guidelines on publication ethics updated by ICMJE and COPE in 2018 and, where the journal is found wanting, to take the necessary steps to make it compliant. Methods: A list of updated criteria - 56 by ICMJE and 22 by COPE - was compiled. In January 2020, compliance with each of these criteria was evaluated by the editor-in-chief and validated by all six associate editors. The evaluation was followed by an action plan to improve compliance, and the evaluation was repeated in November 2020. Results: Of the 56 ICMJE criteria, Pharmactuel was fully compliant with 31 and partly compliant with 10 criteria (a compliance rate of 73%, taking the two together). The corresponding figures for the 22 COPE criteria were 17, 3, and 91%. By modifying its editorial policies, training its associate editors, and creating appropriate guidelines for its editorial board and editors, Pharmactuel achieved almost 100% compliance by the end of 2020. Conclusions: Pharmactuel has been fully compliant with ICMJE and COPE recommendations since January 2021. Minor modifications to Pharmactuel's publication process have enabled the editorial team to ensure that the journal continues to be almost totally compliant with COPE and ICMJE guidelines and to uphold its high ethical standards. [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]

Abstract Background Registration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings. Methods We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics. Results We reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20–1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing. Conclusions Adherence to the ICMJE’s prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.

Background and Objectives: The correct determination of the authorship in a scholarly work is one of the major dimensions of intellectual property and plays a very important role in the assessment of the scientific outputs of countries, organizations and individuals. Therefore, the main objective of this study was identifying effective factors in determining authorship from the viewpoints of the researchers of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Material and Methods: The present study was carried out using qualitative research method and semi-structured interviews. The study population consisted of faculty members, editors-in-chief, editors of journals, reviewers of manuscripts and dissertations, researchers, and graduated students of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. The sampling was done by purposive sampling method. The interview was conducted with 27 eligible participants. The guidebook for interviewing was based on the Delvine-Gray study. The MAXQDA v10 software was used to analyze the findings. Results: Findings of this study showed that the majority of the participants believed that, in addition to mentioning the names of those who have acquired to be an author, other factors (according to the rules and conventions governing the community), including the relationships between individuals, officials and personalities of individuals, facilitating the publication of a paper, monetary issues and hypothetical contracts between individuals, make the name of others included in the article. Conclusion: The results of this study raise concerns that long-term relationships and interests between individuals may violate the principle of quality and scientific values of researchers and scientific works. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The terms "guideline" and "recommendation" suggest a choice is possible. • Are COPE guidelines and ICMJE recommendations mandatory, or voluntary? • Is it possible to not adhere to COPE and/or ICMJE guidelines? • Rules in such guidelines should be open to challenge. • Are there epistemic contradictions in current established ethics guidelines? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Empirical studies of authorship practices in high-income countries have been conducted, while research on this issue is scarce in low- and middle-income countries. A survey was conducted among South African researchers who have published in peer-reviewed journals, to explore their understanding of and ability to apply academic authorship criteria. A total of 967 researchers participated in the survey; 88% of respondents had knowledge of academic authorship criteria, while only 52% found it easy to apply the criteria. More respondents experienced disagreement regarding who qualifies for coauthorship compared with authorship order (59% vs. 48%). Disagreement was mostly linked to different ways of valuing or measuring contributions. Level of agreement with academic authorship criteria was higher than the perceived ability to apply the criteria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In order to estimate the impact factor value for a journal in Dentistry, two sets of variables were considered in this study: the first takes in the longitudinal behavior of the process specified in the slope and intercept of the straight line fitted to the trend of the last years, whereas the second considers the percentage of review papers published each year and the adhesion degree of the journal to ICMJE guidelines. The final estimated model showed a high determination coefficient (99.3%) and its performance was tested on a new set of journals randomly sampled from the list of journal citation reports. [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]

Study Question: What is the prevalence and source of prospectively and retrospectively registered and unregistered trials in fertility treatments?Summary Answer: Trial registration is low and does not appear to be changing over the 5 years studied.What Is Known Already: Trial registration is associated with lower risk of bias than in unregistered trials.Study Design, Size, Duration: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's specialised register was searched on 5 November 2015 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published from January 2010 to December 2014.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Eligible trials included randomised women or men for fertility treatments, were published in full text, and written in English. Two reviewers independently assessed trial registration status for each trial, by searching the publication, trial registries, and by contacting the original authors.Main Results and Role Of Chance: Of 693 eligible RCTS, only 44% were registered trials. Of 309 registered trials, 21.7% were prospectively registered, 15.8% were registered within 6 months of first patient enrolment and 62.5% were retrospectively registered trials. Prospective trial registration by country varied from 0% to 100%. The highest frequency of prospective trial registration amongst the top 10 publishing countries was 31% in the Netherlands.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Only English language trials were included in this review.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Prospective trial registration is still low. Journals, funders and ethics committees could have a greater role to increase trial registration.Study Funding/competing Interests: University of Auckland. No competing interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This letter to the editors takes a deeper look at the validity and ethics of authorship of a recently published article in Nurse Education in Practice in which authorship was shared with a chatbox software program, ChatGPT (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537). In particular, a closer assessment is made of the authorship of that article from the established principles of authorship as delineated by the ICMJE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Increasing specialization, changes in the institutional incentives for publication, and a host of other reasons have brought about a marked trend towards co-authored articles among researchers. These changes have impacted Science and Technology (S&T) policies worldwide. Co-authorship is often considered to be a reliable proxy for assessing research collaborations at micro, meso, and macro levels. Although co-authorship in a scholarly publication brings numerous benefits to the participating authors, it has also given rise to issues of publication integrity, such as ghost authorships and honorary authorships. The code of conduct of bodies such as the American Psychological Association (APA) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) make it clear that only those who have significantly contributed to the study should be on the authorship list. Those who have contributed little have to be appropriately “acknowledged” in footnotes or in the acknowledgement section. However, these principles are sometimes transgressed, and a complete solution still remains elusive.

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the "Instructions for Authors" of emergency medicine journals. Methods: We performed a web-based data abstraction from the "Instructions for Authors" of the 27 Emergency Medicine journals catalogued in the Expanded Science Citation Index of the 2014 Journal Citation Reports and Google Scholar Metrics h5-index to identify whether each journal required, recommended, or made no mention of the following reporting guidelines: EQUATOR Network, ICMJE, ARRIVE, CARE, CONSORT, STARD, TRIPOD, CHEERS, MOOSE, STROBE, COREQ, SRQR, SQUIRE, PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, PRISMA, and QUOROM. We also extracted whether journals required or recommended trial registration. Authors were blinded to one another's ratings until completion of the data validation. Cross-tabulations and descriptive statistics were calculated using IBM SPSS 22. Results: Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 11 (11/27, 40.7%) did not mention a single guideline within their "Instructions for Authors," while the remaining 16 (16/27, 59.3%) mentioned one or more guidelines. The QUOROM statement and SRQR were not mentioned by any journals whereas the ICMJE guidelines (18/27, 66.7%) and CONSORT statement (15/27, 55.6%) were mentioned most often. Of the 27 emergency medicine journals, 15 (15/27, 55.6%) did not mention trial or review registration, while the remaining 12 (12/27, 44.4%) at least mentioned one of the two. Trial registration through ClinicalTrials.gov was mentioned by seven (7/27, 25.9%) journals while the WHO registry was mentioned by four (4/27, 14.8%). Twelve (12/27, 44.4%) journals mentioned trial registration through any registry platform. Discussion: The aim of this study was to evaluate the current state of two publication practices, reporting guidelines requirements and clinical trial registration requirements, by analyzing the "Instructions for Authors" of emergency medicine journals. In this study, there was not a single reporting guideline mentioned in more than half of the journals. This undermines efforts of other journals to improve the completeness and transparency of research reporting. Conclusions: Reporting guidelines are infrequently required or recommended by emergency medicine journals. Furthermore, few require clinical trial registration. These two mechanisms may limit bias and should be considered for adoption by journal editors in emergency medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations set ethical and editorial standards for article publication in most leading medical journals. Here, I examine the strengths and weaknesses of the Recommendations in the prevention of commercial bias in industry-financed journal literature, on three levels - scholarly discourse, article content, and article attribution.Discussion: With respect to overall discourse, the most important measures in the ICMJE Recommendations are for enforcing clinical trial registration and controlling duplicate publication. With respect to article content, the ICMJE promotes stringent author accountability and adherence to established reporting standards. However, the ICMJE accepts the use of commercial editorial teams to produce manuscripts, which is a potential source of bias, and accepts private company ownership and analysis of clinical trial data. New ICMJE guidance on data sharing will address but not eliminate problems of commercial data access. With respect to attribution, the Recommendations oppose guest authorship and encourage clear documentation of author contributions. However, they exclude writers from coauthorship; provide no specific advice on the attribution of commercial literature, for instance with respect to company authorship, author sequence or prominent commercial labeling; and endorse the use of fine print and euphemism. The ICMJE requires detailed author interest disclosures, but overlooks the interests of non-authors and companies, and does not recommend that interests most salient to the publication are highlighted. Together, these weaknesses facilitate "advocacy"-based marketing, in which literature planned, financed and produced by companies is fronted by academics, enabling commercial messages to be presented to customers by their respected clinical peers rather than companies themselves.Conclusions: The ICMJE Recommendations set important research and reporting standards, without which commercial bias would likely be a significantly greater problem than it is today. However, they also support practices of commercial data control, content development and attribution that run counter to science's values of openness, objectivity and truthfulness. These weaknesses could be addressed with appropriate modifications to the Recommendations. The ICMJE should also disclose its own commercial interests and funding - not least because publishing organizations that finance it and pay the salaries of some member editors derive substantial revenues from industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Abstract Introduction Scholarly concentration programs are becoming more prevalent in US medical schools, with frequent participation of students in faculty-mentored research. In order to prepare learners for this shift, we created a discussion-based, 1-hour curriculum for medical students. Our objective was to engage students in a discussion of actual scenarios that have caused students concern in our own scholarly concentration program, and to use this discussion as a springboard for presentation of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship. Methods We created a PowerPoint presentation to provide a framework for this discussion, and to present the scenarios. Also, we created tools to evaluate students' understanding of authorship criteria before presentation of the ICMJE criteria, students' retention of this information, and students' intention to initiate authorship conversations with their mentors as a result of the curriculum. Results Our learner satisfaction for the curriculum was high. All students agreed that they had a clear understanding of authorship criteria after the workshop, compared to only 9% prior to the workshop. Eighty-six percent agreed that the scenarios were engaging and provided tools to use their own discussions about authorship, while 82% of students felt that the workshop prepared them to approach their own mentor about authorship, and 73% reported that they were more likely to initiate a conversation about authorship because of the workshop. Several weeks after the workshop, 61% of students had discussed authorship with their mentor and 25% were planning to have a discussion. Discussion These responses are very significant, as the confidence to navigate an oftentimes stressful topic is critical to empowering students to act in a professional and ethical manner.

Science is in crisis: a crisis of trust, and a crisis of values. Yet, this is an opportune moment for scientists to examine the issues that underly science to discover how they may be of use, beyond their laboratory or field experience, to improve the research and publishing landscapes to create an environment that suits their needs more. Traditionally, the science publishing landscape had been controlled by the science, technology and medicine publishers, who have always taunted their peer review systems as being fail-safe. Yet, considerable moss has been gathered by the post-publication peer review (PPPR) movement over the past few years, indicating that the voice of the average scientist now carries more weight, and more value, than ever before. Despite this, most scientists are unaware of their potential power of opinion. Especially when it comes to commenting on, and correcting, the already published literature. Commenting by name, or anonymously, is the new PPPR publishing reality. There needs to also be a concomitant movement away from artificial metrics, such as the impact factor, which serve only as ego-boosting parameters, and which distract the wider readership from the weaknesses of the traditional peer review system currently in place. Increasing cases of the abuse of peer review, such as the creation of fake identities, affiliations or e-mail addresses further highlights the need for scientists to be vigilant, without necessairly being vigilantes. The discovery, within a matter of years, that the literature is more corrupted than was previously thought, in some cases caused by clear cases of editorial cronyism, or abuse, has resulted in a need for scientists to exceed their functions as mere scientists to evolve into whistle-blowers. Some ethical guidelines are in place, such as those by COPE, yet what is being increasingly witnessed, is a discrepancy between preached values by select COPE member journals, and the literature that they have published. Authorship issues continue to be plagued by inconsistencies in the application and verification of the ICMJE's definitions. In a bid to expand their publishing options, open access has also reached a crisis with wave upon wave of predatory journals, leaving scientists in a quagmire. This paper serves two purposes: to raise red flags and to call for greater awareness and discussion of these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.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.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.A vast majority of young faculty members are not aware of the existence of authorship criteria and gift authorship is quite common.