Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture

Background

The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ' What does the evidence say about the 'problem' with 'poor' research culture, what are the benefits of 'good' research culture, and what does 'good' look like?'

Aims

To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.

Methods

A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.

Results

1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.

Conclusions

There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals' well-being, career progression and performance.

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Critical Partnerships: How to Develop a Trans-Disciplinary Research Team

Trans-disciplinary science will continue to be critical for the next wave of scientific advancement to fully understand cancer development, progression, and treatment. The shift from the independent investigator to either leading or being a productive member of a scientific team can be successful by focusing on some key elements that can build and strengthen interactions with a diverse group of people. These include the selection of the team, communication, leadership and mentorship, shared goals, responsibility to the team, authorship, and proactively dealing with conflict. While there are extensive books written on developing teams in the business world, and larger pieces in the medical arena, we attempt to provide here a concise, high-level view as a starting point for those that may be moving from being an independent researcher and are developing their own, larger, trans-disciplinary teams.

"Technical" Contributors and Authorship Distribution in Health Science

In health sciences, technical contributions may be undervalued and excluded in the author byline. In this paper, I demonstrate how authorship is a historical construct which perpetuates systemic injustices including technical undervaluation. I make use of Pierre Bourdieu's conceptual work to demonstrate how the power dynamics at play in academia make it very challenging to change the habitual state or "habitus". To counter this, I argue that we must reconceive technical contributions to not be a priori less important based on its nature when assigning roles and opportunities leading to authorship. I make this argument based on two premises. First, science has evolved due to major information and biotechnological innovation; this requires 'technicians' to acquire and exercise a commensurate high degree of both technical and intellectual expertise which in turn increases the value of their contribution. I will illustrate this by providing a brief historical view of work statisticians, computer programmers/data scientists and laboratory technicians. Second, excluding or undervaluing this type of work is contrary to norms of responsibility, fairness and trustworthiness of the individual researchers and of teams in science. Although such norms are continuously tested because of power dynamics, their importance is central to ethical authorship practice and research integrity. While it may be argued that detailed disclosure of contributions (known as contributorship) increases accountability by clearly identifying who did what in the publication, I contend that this may unintentionally legitimize undervaluation of technical roles and may decrease integrity of science. Finally, this paper offers recommendations to promote ethical inclusion of technical contributors.

Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide

OBJECTIVE

The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region.

METHODS

This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines.

RESULTS

Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this manuscript offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.

Promoting Ethical Integrity in Authorship Attribution: Who Can Help More?

N/a.

A guideline for the appropriate recognition of shared resource laboratories in publication

The issue of what level of contribution warrants authorship, determining a fair order of authors and when and whom to acknowledge in publications is often a cause of debate, and in some instances, has also been a focus of conflict at certain institutions. Shared resource laboratories (SRLs) play a fundamental role in supporting publications, and SRL staff scientists can contribute to numerous areas such as experimental design, sample preparation, data acquisition, data analysis and manuscript drafting and review. However, SRL staff scientists are often unfairly omitted from the author list. To avoid SRLs and SRL staff scientist contributions going unnoticed, the authors have formulated a set of guidelines to aid in the conceptualization and recognition of the technical and intellectual contributions of SRLs. As a better understanding of the role SRL staff scientists play in the achievement of the scientific lead's experimental aims will foster a positive feedback loop, where acknowledgements can lead to more support and funding for SRLs and more engaged SRL staff capable of supporting discoveries and technological innovations that underpin major advancements in the field of life sciences.

"The person in power told me to"-European PhD students' perspectives on guest authorship and good authorship practice

Questionable authorship practices in scientific publishing are detrimental to research quality and management. The existing literature dealing with the prevalence, and perceptions, of such practices has focused on the medical sciences, and on experienced researchers. In contrast, this study investigated how younger researchers (PhD students) from across the faculties view fair authorship attribution, their experience with granting guest authorships to more powerful researchers and their reasons for doing so. Data for the study were collected in a survey of European PhD students. The final dataset included 1,336 participants from five European countries (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Portugal, and Switzerland) representing all major disciplines. Approximately three in ten reported that they had granted at least one guest authorship to "a person in power". Half of these indicated that they had done so because they had been told to do so by the person in power. Participants from the medical, natural and technical sciences were much more likely to state that they had granted a guest authorship than those from other faculties. We identified four general views about what is sufficient for co-authorship. There were two dominant views. The first (inclusive view) considered a broad range of contributions to merit co-authorship. The second (strongly writing-oriented) emphasised that co-authors must have written a piece of the manuscript text. The inclusive view dominated in the natural, technical, and medical sciences. Participants from other faculties were more evenly distributed between the inclusive and writing oriented view. Those with an inclusive view were most likely to indicate that they have granted a guest authorship. According to the experiences of our participants, questionable authorship practices are prevalent among early-career researchers, and they appear to be reinforced through a combination of coercive power relations and dominant norms in some research cultures, particularly in the natural, technical, and medical sciences.

Misuse of co-authorship in Medical PhD Theses in Scandinavia: A Questionnaire Survey

Background

Several studies suggest that deviations from proper authorship practices are commonplace in medicine. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of and attitudes towards the handling of authorship in PhD theses at medical faculties in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden.

Methods

Those who defended their PhD thesis at a medical faculty in Scandinavia during the second half of 2020 were offered, by e-mail, to participate in an online survey. Survey questions dealt with experiences of violations of the first three of the ICMJE authorship criteria and misuse of authorship order in the thesis articles, as well as respondents’ attitudes to these matters. Both questions with fixed response alternatives and questions with free-text responses were used. Quantitative data were analysed statistically using the Table functions in SPSS 25 and Chi-2 tests. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively using manifest content analysis.

Results

287 valid questionnaires were returned (response rate: 34.1%). Almost half (46.0%) of the respondents reported that the ICMJE authorship criteria were not fully respected in at least one of the papers in their thesis, while a vast majority (96.7%) found it important that authorship is handled according to the ICMJE authorship criteria. 24.4% reported inadequate handling of authorship order in at least one paper. The qualitative results provide a wide spectrum of examples of how the ICMJE authorship criteria are circumvented.

Conclusion

Despite increasing educational efforts to reduce deviations from good research practice at Scandinavian universities, the handling of authorship in medical papers remains problematic.

The Impact of the Excellence Program on Employee Performance at Aseer Central Hospital in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction Motivation is a power that directs employees toward achieving their special goals and the organization's objectives in general. Recently, motivation has been considered one of the most important issues in the workplace since each organization wants to get the most out of its resources, including its manpower. In Saudi Arabia, the Aseer Health Directorate like the other regions, has a monthly reward containing certification and online announcements of employee excellence via email and website. The annual ministry program has three levels: 10% in salary for employees who have received excellence certification from the general director, 20% if they add research, and 30% if they register a patent. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted in the Aseer Central Hospital among healthcare providers (HCP) of all categories using structured interviews with three parts: socio-demographic, knowledge about criteria for excellence in the program, and opinion toward the program and its effects. The sample size was calculated using the total number of employees in the hospital, with 77 being the bare minimum required. The sampling method used was systematic random sampling with a list of statistical analyses from the SPSS statistical package (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The statistical analysis description for all variables was based on frequency and presence, followed by bivariate analysis. Results In the study, 103 participants who were physicians made up 28.2% of the sample, followed by nurses at 32%, and other health professionals at 39.8%. Males made up 64.1% and females 35.9%. While 55.3% of individuals claimed to be aware of the standards of excellence allowance, 44.7% of participants denied doing so. Around 7.8% of employees missed work or arrived late, compared to 92.2% who didn't, and 75% of those who had proof in their files received a pay cut or other penalty. The average employee's age was 33.5 years old, and 4.05% of them believed they performed better than their coworkers. An average of 4.43 employees believe that there will be more competition when the number of allowances increases. While the excellence allowance has a favorable effect as indicated by the 4.55 mean. With a mean of 2.47 and 2.45, the majority of employees, respectively, did not agree with the transparent and fair selection process. Conclusion  The purpose of the study was to demonstrate the significance of rewarding and encouraging employees, as well as the positive impact of this system on increasing their performance and productivity in order to implement the health organization's strategy and improve healthcare delivery and quality. There is a high percentage of employees who are dissatisfied with the transparency and fairness of the selection criteria, and some of them believe that team performance should be improved rather than individual performance. So the recommendation is to improve the selection criteria, make them more specific and transparent, and increase the number of teams and individuals who can be enrolled to improve the healthcare delivery system.

Authorship disputes and patient research participation: collaborating across backgrounds

Public participation and survivor research in mental health are widely recognized as vital to the field. At the same time, contributions of patient collaborators can present unique challenges to determining authorship. Using an unresolved dispute around research contributions to the American Psychiatric Association’s Psychiatric Services journal, authorship and contribution are addressed. Recommendations are suggested to prevent dilemmas and achieve responsible research credit inclusion, especially among researchers with different backgrounds and asymmetric power relations. Researchers and publishers can prepare proactively for conflict through consensus on authorship criteria, prior agreements around author inclusion, arrangement for third party dispute resolution, transparency in communication and contracts, notification to prospective publications of pending disputes, a contributor-guarantor model of contribution, journal editor “expressions of concern” when authorship disputes go unresolved, and expectation of conflict as generative.

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.

Exploring parity in female authorship of pharmacoepidemiology articles: A case study of the Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies and its citing articles

PURPOSE

The Canadian Network for Observational Drug Effect Studies (CNODES) studies the benefits and risks of post-market drugs and evaluates its research mobilization efforts for accountability, demonstrating value, and learning. As part of these evaluation efforts, and acknowledging gender disparity in authorship across many academic disciplines, CNODES examined the relationship between gender and authorship in its own journal articles and the literature citing them.

METHODS

CNODES articles (published 2012-2017) and all citing articles were identified and extracted using Scopus. Scopus author IDs were used to extract full names and a web service (www.genderapi.com) was used to estimate gender, converting all probabilities <80% to "indeterminate." T-tests and visualizations were used to compare the proportion of females between CNODES and the citing literature.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight CNODES articles and 463 citing articles were identified. The mean number of authors per article was 9.5 in CNODES articles and 5.7 in the citing literature. CNODES articles had a female authorship rate of 36%, compared to 29% in the citing literature (7% difference, 95% CI: [1%, 13%]). There were no female authors in 14% of CNODES articles versus 36% of the citing literature. Women were first authors in 25% and corresponding authors in 14% of CNODES articles.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis provides a benchmark and method to monitor progress in female parity in pharmacoepidemiology authorship. Further work is needed to determine and address barriers and facilitators to women's recruitment and advancement in the field of pharmacoepidemiology.

Reimagining authorship guidelines to promote equity in co-produced academic collaborations

Authorship of academic papers is a currency that can bring career advantages in academia and other industries. How authorship should be decided is not always clear, particularly in co-produced research with non-academic collaborators, for which existing authorship guidelines are largely silent. In this paper, we critically reflect on what constitutes written authorship in the context of co-produced health research. We present examples from our own work to illustrate the argument we make, including publishing a co-authored paper with non-academic partners. We consider questions of what constitutes authorship and how it is mutually understood. We discuss some of the opportunities and limits to participation and how these might translate into academic authorship as a collaborative research output. Finally, we explore the potential of authorship guidelines as a resource for critical reflection on what we mean by co-produced work and how we recognise contributions to global health research. We suggest that authorship guidelines should be adapted to encourage attribution of co-produced research to include non-academic as well as academic collaborators, and we provide a draft guideline for how this might be done.

Exclusion of Expert Contributors From Authorship Limits the Quality of Scientific Articles

Veterinary pathologists are key contributors to multidisciplinary biomedical research. However, they are occasionally excluded from authorship in published articles despite their substantial intellectual and data contributions. To better understand the potential origins and implications of this practice, we identified and analyzed 29 scientific publications where the contributing pathologist was excluded as an author. The amount of pathologist-generated data contributions were similar to the calculated average contributions for authors, suggesting that the amount of data contributed by the pathologist was not a valid factor for their exclusion from authorship. We then studied publications with pathologist-generated contributions to compare the effects of inclusion or exclusion of the pathologist as an author. Exclusion of the pathologist from authorship was associated with significantly lower markers of rigor and reproducibility compared to articles in which the pathologist was included as author. Although this study did not find justification for the exclusion of pathologists from authorship, potential consequences of their exclusion on data quality were readily detectable.

Scientific authorship: a primer for researchers

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) proposed the authorship criteria which can be employed by medics and allied specialists. Scholars who substantively contribute to research and writing, revise, approve final drafts for target journal submissions, and take responsibility for all aspects of the work deserve authorship. Increasing awareness of the ICMJE criteria, incorporating related points in journal instructions, and enforcing them in daily practice may have positive impact for healthcare. Instances of inappropriate authorship are ethical transgressions which can be avoided by editors employing strategies of author profile evaluations. There are several platforms for recording author accomplishments which may improve the discoverability of scholarly works and prevent unethical conduct.

Most publishers advise authors to submit their Open Researcher and Contributor IDs (ORCID) at the manuscript submission. Other identifiers, such as Twitter handles, are also emerging as tools to stimulate post-publication communication and increase authors’ accountability for published articles.