Authorship grids: Practical tools to facilitate collaboration and ethical publication

A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia

Authorship and dissemination policies vary across NIH research consortia. We aimed to describe elements of real-life policies in use by eligible U01 clinical research consortia. Principal investigators of eligible, active U01 clinical research projects identified in the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database shared relevant policies. The characteristics of key policy elements, determined a priori, were reviewed and quantified, when appropriate. Twenty one of 81 research projects met search criteria and provided policies. K elements (e.g., in quotations): "manuscript proposals reviewed and approved by committee" (90%); "guidelines for acknowledgements" (86%); "writing team formation" (71%); "process for final manuscript review and approval" (71%), "responsibilities for lead author" (67%), "guidelines for other types of publications" (67%); "draft manuscript review and approval" (62%); "recommendation for number of members per consortium site" (57%); and "requirement to identify individual contributions in the manuscript" (19%). Authorship/dissemination policies for large team science research projects are highly variable. Creation of an NIH policies repository and accompanying toolkit with model language and recommended key elements could improve comprehensiveness, ethical integrity, and efficiency in team science work while reducing burden and cost on newly funded consortia and directing time and resources to scientific endeavors.

Mapping author taxonomies and author criteria: good practices for thinking through complex authorship situations

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.

Building consensus on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research: recommendations from an expert task force of medical publication professionals

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study

Authorship can be a source of tension on research teams, in academic/industry collaborations, and between mentors/mentees. Authorship misconduct is prevalent among biomedical researchers, and disputes about authorship can generate tensions that have the potential to disrupt professional relationships and damage careers. Early-career researchers may experience particular challenges navigating authorship both because of inexperience and power differentials; in effect, they lack the language and confidence to have these conversations and may feel unwilling to challenge the status quo. The authors implemented an Authorship Agreement for use when collaborating on a manuscript and hypothesized that using this agreement would reduce authorship tensions and speed time to manuscript submission by helping early-career investigators manage authorship conversations more effectively. The authors surveyed trainees (n = 65) on the prevalence of authorship-related tensions and compared the results from the first survey in 2017 to the final survey in 2020. The decrease in tensions around meeting deadlines was significant (z = 2.59, p = 0.010). The authors believe the effect of an Authorship Agreement on authorship-related tensions has not previously been investigated. This work extends what is known about the prevalence of commonly cited authorship tensions, and provides evidence of the effectiveness of steps that can be taken to alleviate them.

¿Quién es autor? Las autorías múltiples, criterios y lineamientos

Este artículo tiene por objeto: 1. Poner en evidencia las prácticas injustificadas más recurrentes en la asignación de autorías en las publicaciones científicas. 2. Rastrear los criterios frecuentemente aceptados dentro de la comunidad académica para establecer quién puede, en propiedad, llamarse autor, y 3. Proponer un conjunto de medidas que permitan valorar apropiadamente artículos con múltiples autores. Para ello se hizo una revisión de artículos publicados en Pubmed y Scopus usando palabras claves como “autoría” (authorship), “criterios para establecer autorías” (authorship guidelines), “artículos con múltiples autores” (multiple authors). A partir de los hallazgos, se indagaron las irregularidades más relevantes y los principios más aceptados. Como resultado, a través de los documentos consultados fueron identificadas las prácticas más censurables y las fuentes de criterios más reconocidas para establecer las autorías: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Council Science Editors (CSE), The World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), National Institutes of Health (NIH), The American Psychological Association (APA) y The Center for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Sidney University (SEH). Debido a que gran parte de los lineamientos dados por estas organizaciones son en su mayor parte impracticables, se propone una nueva forma y se concluye que es menester que tanto financiadores, instituciones, editoriales, editores en jefe e investigadores, asuman ciertas funciones de control y seguimiento, de tal forma que se preserve la integridad científica de las publicaciones, sin interferencia de las métricas.

Multiple co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors: a synthesis of shared authorship credit

Purpose

Authorship is the ultimate status of intellectual recognition in academic publishing. Although fairly robust guidelines have already been in place for a considerable amount of time regarding authorship criteria and credit, such as those by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or Contributor Roles Taxonomy, the lack of reliable verification techniques hamper their accuracy, thereby reducing the validity of authorship claims in such statements. This paper aims to focus on the authorship status and responsibilities of co-first authors and co-corresponding authors.

Design/methodology/approach

To appreciate authorship responsibilities in this subset of authors, the broader academic authorship literature, as well as position statements, rules and guidelines, were consulted.

Findings

Academic publishing that relies on metrics is a global multi-billion-dollar business, so strict measures to assess and confirm authorship, which can be intellectually or financially “profitable” among academics that game such metrics, are needed. The current assessment is that there are inconsistent rules for equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. In shared and collaborative authorship, there are also shared authorship-related responsibilities, but these are infrequently discussed, or tend to only be dealt with broadly.

Originality/value

Within the wider, and important, discussion about authorship, which is one of the most central issues in academic publishing, there has been a limited focus on equally credited authors such as co-first authors, co-corresponding authors and co-supervisors. This paper expands and fortifies that discussion.

Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing

Scholars traditionally receive career credit for a paper based on where in the author list they appear, but position in an author list often carries little information about what the contribution of each researcher was. "Contributorship" refers to a movement to formally document the nature of each researcher's contribution to a project. We discuss the emerging CRediT standard for documenting contributions and describe a web-based app and R package called tenzing that is designed to facilitate its use. tenzing can make it easier for researchers on a project to plan and record their planned contributions and to document those contributions in a journal article.

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.