A starting point for a discussion of authorship could be 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 ascertain guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted with their journals. The group became referred to as Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references manufactured by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group evolved and expanded into 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 are called Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and other statements relating to policy that is editorial. The most update that is recent in November 2003. Approximately 500 journals that are biomedical to the guidelines.
According to the ICMJE guidelines:
The Schцn Case: Taking responsibility for others’ work
- Authorship credit must be according to 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the content or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval associated with version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
- When a big, multi-center group has conducted the task, the group should identify the people who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. Him or her should fully meet the requirements for authorship defined above and editors will ask these people to accomplish journal-specific author and conflict of great interest disclosure forms. When submitting an organization author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and should clearly identify all individual authors along with the group name. Journals will generally list other members of the group when you look at the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the group name and the names of an individual the group has defined as being directly accountable for the manuscript.
- Acquisition of funding, number of data, or supervision that is general of research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
- Each author need to have participated sufficiently into the strive to take responsibility that is public appropriate portions associated with content.
- Your order of authorship regarding the byline ought to be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should always be willing to give an explanation for order by which authors are paper writer listed.
- All contributors that do not meet the requirements for authorship should really be listed in an acknowledgments section.
C. Problems with ICMJE recommendations
Two major issues with the ICMJE guidelines are that numerous members of the scientific community are unacquainted with them and many 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 showed that 21% of authors of basic science papers and 30% of authors of clinical studies had no involvement into the conception or design of a project, the style for the scholarly study, the analysis and interpretation of data, or the writing or revisions. Actual practice, this indicates, 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 fellows that are postdoctoral the University of California, San Francisco, by which fewer than half knew about any university, school, laboratory, or departmental guidelines for research and publication. Half believed that being head of the laboratory was sufficient for authorship, and slightly fewer believed that getting funding was enough for authorship.
A report by Tarnow of postdoctoral fellows in physics in the 1990s also shows divergences from ICMJE precepts and points to other concerns about authorship into the sciences. Tarnow unearthed that 74% associated with the postdoctoral fellows failed to recognize the American Physical Society’s guidelines or thought it was vague or ready to accept multiple interpretations. Half the guidelines were thought by the respondents 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% associated with the relationships the criteria for designating other authors had not been “clearly agreed upon.”
Clearly, different laboratories have different practices about who must 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 have not directly contributed to the research. At other institutions, laboratory heads would routinely include as authors technicians who may have performed many experiments but might not have made a significant contribution that is intellectual a paper, although some will give a technician only an acknowledgment at the end of a paper. Some supervisors that are academic have their graduate students collect data, do research, and write up results, yet not let them have credit on a paper, while others can give authorship credit to students. Some foreigners in the usa may feel obligated to place mentors from their property countries on a paper even though they did not participate in the study.
Alternatives to ICMJE
Another problem aided by the ICMJE guidelines that has show up is the fact that each author may not be able to take responsibility that is full the totality of a paper. In an age of increasing specialization, one person knowing most of the statistical analyses and methodology that is scientific went into getting results could be unlikely. Because of this, some journals, such as the British Medical Journal and Lancet, have turned away from the notion of an author and instead think in terms of an individual who is prepared to take responsibility for the content of the paper. The Journal associated with the American Medical Association also now requires authors to submit a questionnaire attesting into the nature of the contribution to a paper.
The British Medical Journal says that listing authorship according to ICMJE guidelines will not clarify who is accountable for 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. More than one of the contributors are believed “guarantors” of the paper. The guarantor must make provision for a written statement she accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish that he or. BMJ says that researchers must determine among themselves the complete nature of each 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, along with an insurance policy on identifying who is in charge of the integrity of this work as a whole. with an increase of awareness of the matter, ICMJE now has with its guidelines”
E. Other authorship responsibilities
An author has many other responsibilities (what is listed below has been adapted from Michael Kalichman’s educational material for the University of California, San Diego) besides clarifying the issue of who is an author and who deserves credit for work:
Checklist for Authors from Science’s Next Wave
- Good writing: Authors must write well and explain methods, data analysis and conclusions so a reader can understand them and also replicate findings. Charts, tables and graphs must be clear also.
- Accuracy: Although every effort should be built to not have mistakes in a paper, be they in a footnote or through the research itself, unintentional errors creep in. Authors should be careful.
- Context and citations: the writer needs to put research into appropriate context and provide citations within the manuscript that both agree and disagree aided by the work.
- Publishing negative results: If researchers never publish negative results, it generates a impression that is false biases the literature. If results are not published from a drug trial, as an example, that either shows a medication doesn’t work or has unwanted effects, clinicians reviewing the literature might get the wrong idea about the medication’s true value. Because of this, other researchers may continue with studies about a potentially bad drug.