Criteria for authorship in bioethics

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.

Quantifying gender disparity in physician authorship among commentary articles in three high-impact medical journals: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Scholarship plays a direct role in career advancement, promotion and authoritative recognition, and women physicians remain under-represented as authors of original research articles.

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine if women physician authors are similarly under-represented in commentary articles within high-impact journals.

DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

In this observational study, we abstracted and analysed author information (gender and degree) and authorship position from commentary articles published in three high-impact journals between 1 January 2014 and 16 October 2018.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Authorship rate of commentary articles over a 5-year period by gender, degree, authorship position and journal.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

To compare the proportion of men and women physician authorship of commentaries relative to the proportion of men and women physician faculty within academic medicine; and to examine the gender concordance among the last and first authors in articles with more than one author.

RESULTS

Of the 2087 articles during the study period, 48% were men physician first authors compared with 17% women physician first authors (p<0.0001). Of the 1477 articles with more than one author, similar distributions were found with regard to last authors: 55% were men physicians compared with only 12% women physicians (p<0.0001). The proportion of women physician first authors increased over time; however, the proportion of women physician last authors remained stagnant. Women coauthored with women in the first and last authorship positions in 9% of articles. In contrast, women coauthored with men in the first and last author positions, respectively, in 55% of articles.

CONCLUSIONS

Women physician authors remain under-represented in commentary articles compared with men physician authors in the first and last author positions. Women also coauthored commentaries with other women in far fewer numbers.

Authorship Order in Medical Education Publications: In Search of Practical Guidance for the Community

Phenomenon: With scholarly collaborations come questions about the order of authorship. Authorship order is an important consideration because it often used as an indicator of seniority, expertise, leadership, and scholarly productivity. As a result, authorship order factors into decisions about hiring, salary, resource allocation, and professional advancement. This study describes principles commonly applied to authorship order decisions within the medical education community and educators' opinions about the significance of authorship order. Approach: A questionnaire was developed to ascertain current practices related to authorship decisions. Sixteen items were rated in terms of frequency of actual use and the desirability of the practice using a 4-point rating scale: 1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (always). Additional questions addressed the perceived significance of authorship order. The last set of questions provided information about respondents' personal and career characteristics. The survey was delivered via e-mail to a random sample of 391 subscribers from the DR-ED listserv. Findings: Fifty-four e-mail addresses were returned as undeliverable; of the remaining 337 mailed surveys, 109 responses (32.3%) were received. Five of the current practices for determining authorship order were rated as both frequent and desirable; 4 items had low ratings suggesting that these practices were both infrequent and undesirable. For 7 items, there was a significant gap between the ratings of practice frequency and desirability. When asked about preferred authorship order strategies, most respondents (94%) endorsed listing authors by descending order based on contribution but were split in identifying the last author (47%) or second author (46%) as the next best placement after first author. Respondents supported the practice of many journals requiring authors to disclose their contributions, agreeing (69%) that it provides useful information for promotion and tenure committees; however, 43% were uncertain about how disclosed contributions were reflected in authorship order. Insights: Respondents strongly endorsed the importance of listing authors in order of decreasing contribution, although the meaning of second versus last author lacks consensus. This finding, together the other strategies that received strong endorsement and those that were not strongly endorsed, provides a starting point to develop guidance for medical educators about how to determine authorship order. Clear guidance for authors would promote fairness and accountability within the medical education community as well as provide more consistent interpretation for those who consider authorship order for career- and resource-related decisions.

Whose Paper Is It Anyway? Authorship Criteria According to Established Scholars in Health Professions Education

PURPOSE

The health professions education (HPE) community is a crossroad of scholars from various disciplines with potentially conflicting views on who qualifies as author. Established HPE scholars are expected to model ethical research conduct, but no research has investigated the extent to which authorship criteria are understood and applied by leaders in the field. This study investigated what leading scholars consider appropriate criteria for authorship and how often these criteria are ignored.

METHOD

Directors of research and editors of HPE journals completed an anonymous survey between September 2015 and August 2016 with questions about authorship practices they experienced and recommended, common authorship criteria, and how often they had encountered unethical authorship decisions.

RESULTS

Out of 82 invited scholars, 46 participated in the survey (response rate = 56.0%). They reported a stark contrast between current and recommended authorship practices. Twenty-two (51.2%) had experienced unethical pressure regarding authorship order, 15 (34.9%) had not been included as author when they qualified, and 25 (58.1%) had seen authors included who did not qualify. A slight majority (n = 25; 58.1%) correctly identified authorship standards widely adopted by biomedical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

A surprising proportion of leaders in the HPE field had encountered unethical authorship practices. Despite widely disseminated authorship criteria, the findings suggest that offering authorship to those who do not qualify, or arguably worse, excluding those who should have been included, remains a common practice. The authors offer strategies to scholars, editors, and tenure and promotion committees to combat these practices.

New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy

This paper examines a constellation of ethical and editorial issues that have arisen since philosophers started to conduct, submit and publish empirical research. These issues encompass concerns over responsible authorship, fair treatment of human subjects, ethicality of experimental procedures, availability of data, unselective reporting and publishability of research findings. This study aims to assess whether the philosophical community has as yet successfully addressed such issues. To do so, the instructions for authors, submission process and published research papers of 29 main journals in philosophy have been considered and analyzed. In light of the evidence reported here, it is argued that the philosophical community has as yet failed to properly tackle such issues. The paper also delivers some recommendations for authors, reviewers and editors in the field.

Best Practice to Order Authors in Multi/Interdisciplinary Health Sciences Research Publications

Misunderstanding and disputes about authorship are commonplace among members of multi/interdisciplinary health research teams. If left unmanaged and unresolved, these conflicts can undermine knowledge sharing and collaboration, obscure accountability for research, and contribute to the incorrect attribution of credit. To mitigate these issues, certain researchers suggest quantitative authorship distributions schemes (e.g., point systems), while others wish to replace or minimize the importance of authorship by using "contributorship"-a system based on authors' self-reporting contributions. While both methods have advantages, we argue that authorship and contributorship will most likely continue to coexist for multiple ethical and practical reasons. In this article, we develop a five-step "best practice" that incorporates the distribution of both contributorship and authorship for multi/interdisciplinary research. This procedure involves continuous dialogue and the use of a detailed contributorship taxonomy ending with a declaration explaining contributorship, which is used to justify authorship order. Institutions can introduce this approach in responsible conduct of research training as it promotes greater fairness, trust, and collegiality among team members and ultimately reduces confusion and facilitates resolution of time-consuming disagreements.