Biomedical Authorship: Common Misconducts and Possible Scenarios for Disputes

Effective hands-on teaching strategy on participants' confidence in medical writing and publishing: A before-after study

Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day "learning-by-doing" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops.

Impact of Performing Medical Writing/Publishing Workshops: A Systematic Survey and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

Proficiency in medical writing and publishing is essential for medical researchers. Workshops can play a valuable role in addressing these issues. However, there is a lack of systematic summaries of evidence on the evaluation of their impacts. So, in this systematic review, we aimed to evaluate all articles published on the impact of such workshops worldwide.

Methods

We searched Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Medline, ISI Web of Science, ERIC database, and grey literature with no language, time period, or geographical location limitations. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, before-after studies, surveys, and program evaluation and development studies were included. We performed a meta-analysis on data related to knowledge increase after the workshops and descriptively reported the evaluation of other articles that did not have sufficient data for a meta-analysis. All analyses were performed using Stata software, version 15.0.

Results

Of 23 040 reports, 222 articles underwent full-text review, leading to 45 articles reporting the impacts of workshops. Overall, the reports on the impact of such workshops were incomplete or lacked the necessary precision to draw acceptable conclusions. The workshops were sporadic, and researchers used their own method of assessment. Meta-analyses of the impact on the knowledge showed that workshops could nonsignificantly increase the mean or percentage of participants' knowledge.

Conclusion

In the absence of systematic academic courses on medical writing/publishing, workshops are conducted worldwide; however, reports on educational activities during such workshops, the methods of presentations, and their curricula are incomplete and vary. Their impact is not evaluated using standardized methods, and no valid and reliable measurement tools have been employed for these assessments.

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.