Authorship policies of bioethics journals

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.

An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication

This article explores the impact of an Increase in the average Number of Authors per Publication (INAP) on known ethical issues of authorship. For this purpose, the ten most common ethical issues associated with scholarly authorship are used to set up a taxonomy of existing issues and raise awareness among the community to take precautionary measures and adopt best practices to minimize the negative impact of INAP. We confirm that intense international, interdisciplinary and complex collaborations are necessary, and INAP is an expression of this trend. However, perverse incentives aimed to increase institutional and personal publication counts and egregious instances of guest or honorary authorship are problematic. We argue that whether INAP is due to increased complexity and scale of science, perverse incentives or undeserved authorship, it could negatively affect known ethical issues of authorship at some level. In the long run, INAP depreciates the value of authorship status and may disproportionately impact junior researchers and those who contribute to technical and routine tasks. We provide two suggestions that could reduce the long-term impact of INAP on the reward system of science. First, we suggest further refinement of the CRediT taxonomy including better integration into current systems of attribution and acknowledgement, and better harmony with major authorship guidelines such as those suggested by the ICMJE. Second, we propose adjustments to the academic recognition and promotion systems at an institutional level as well as the introduction of best practices.

Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices

Academic publishing is undergoing profound changes that shape the conditions of knowledge production and the way research is communicated, prompting a lively debate on how the various activities of those involved can be adequately acknowledged in publications. This contribution aims to empirically examine the relationship between authorship regulations in journal policies, the disciplinary variance in authorship practice and larger concepts of academic authorship. Analyzing (1) editorial policies and (2) data from an interdisciplinary survey of scientists, we examine to what extent disciplinary variances are reflected in the policies as well as in researchers' individual understandings. Here we find that the regulation of authorship qua policies is primarily effected at the level of the publishers. Although considerable disciplinary variations of journal policies are sometimes suggested in the literature, we find only minor differences in authorship criteria. The survey data however show that researchers' understandings of authorship exhibit significant, discipline-specific differences, as well as differences related to the characteristics of the research practice. It hence becomes clear that discipline-specific conditions of knowledge production with the resulting differences in authorship practices are hardly reflected in authorship policies. We conclude that the regulatory ambitions of authorship policies mostly focus on the prevention and elimination of deficits in the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Thus, it seems questionable whether authorship policies in their current form are suitable instruments for mediating between diverse authorship practices and normative ideals of legitimate authorship.

Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals

BACKGROUND

In biomedical research, there have been numerous scandals highlighting conflicts of interest (COIs) leading to significant bias in judgment and questionable practices. Academic institutions, journals, and funding agencies have developed and enforced policies to mitigate issues related to COI, especially surrounding financial interests. After a case of editorial COI in a prominent bioethics journal, there is concern that the same level of oversight regarding COIs in the biomedical sciences may not apply to the field of bioethics. In this study, we examined the availability and comprehensiveness of COI policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.

METHODS

After developing a codebook, we analyzed the content of online COI policies of 63 bioethics journals, along with policy information provided by journal editors that was not publicly available.

RESULTS

Just over half of the bioethics journals had COI policies for authors (57%), and only 25% for peer reviewers and 19% for editors. There was significant variation among policies regarding definitions, the types of COIs described, the management mechanisms, and the consequences for noncompliance. Definitions and descriptions centered on financial COIs, followed by personal and professional relationships. Almost all COI policies required disclosure of interests for authors as the primary management mechanism. Very few journals outlined consequences for noncompliance with COI policies or provided additional resources.

CONCLUSION

Compared to other studies of biomedical journals, a much lower percentage of bioethics journals have COI policies and these vary substantially in content. The bioethics publishing community needs to develop robust policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors and these should be made publicly available to enhance academic and public trust in bioethics scholarship.

The author who wasn't there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks

We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.

The Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It

Aim:

Aim of article was to evaluate knowledge and practice of authorship issues among the academic population in the medical field.

Material and methods:

Article has an analytical character and includes 69 academic workers (from the medical field, with the status of a regular employee of the Faculty of Medicine or a professional associate) who responded to the survey.

Results:

Within the total number of respondents in the study, 34.8% of them were added as coauthors, although they did not have any input in the writing process. Even 47.8% of the respondents were under psychological pressure, that they have to add their superiors to the list of authors, though they did not have any contribution at any stage of the article preparation, while 29% of the respondents had a tacit agreement about mutual adding to the author’s list, and 36.2% added their superiors to the author’s list, in order that the first author would get a permission to publish the article in a certain journal.

Conclusion:

The relationship between the author, the mentor, the data processing person, the person providing the moral support etc. must be established, and not all of them has a place in the list of authors, they should be given special places at the end of the article, a space for acknowledgments, where these people may be mentioned. The consciousness of the academic community must change for the purpose of the concrete progress of the academic community and the scientific contributions of its members.

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.

Highlights in bioethics through 40 years: a quantitative analysis of top-cited journal articles

BACKGROUND

The field of bioethics is constantly evolving. To investigate trends in the field of bioethics, we conducted a quantitative analysis of the top-cited articles in bioethical journals over the past 40 years.

METHODS

Retrospective quantitative study of the 20 most cited bioethics articles published each year from 1975 to 2014 were conducted. Article samples were selected from a list of the most relevant 100 journals in the field of bioethics.

RESULTS

In total, 800 top-cited articles between 1975 and 2014 in the domain of bioethics were retrieved and analysed. More than half of them were composed by single authors, but multiauthorship became more prevalent with time. The majority (84.5%) of these highly cited articles originated from the USA (65.3%), UK or Canada, though the proportion of other countries increased in recent years. Almost half (44.6%) of the highly cited articles belonged to the subfield of clinical ethics, but other subfields such as research ethics, public health ethics and neuroethics became more prominent. Overall, the distribution of Thesaurus keywords and subfields became more diverse over time, and the number of journals publishing top-cited articles doubled. Furthermore, the empirical ethics approach increased over time in our sample of top-cited articles.

CONCLUSIONS

In sum, the forefront of bioethics is getting more diversified, collaborative and international. The presumed 'mainstream' becomes less dominant over time, as more highly cited articles come from new subfields, discuss new topics, use more Bioethics Thesaurus keywords, more authors participate and more countries other than the USA contribute to bioethics journals.

Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement

The various problems associated with co-authorship of research articles have attracted much attention in recent years. We believe that this (hopefully) growing awareness is a very welcome development. However, we will argue that the particular and increasing importance of authorship and the harmful implications of current practices of research authorship for junior researchers have not been emphasised enough. We will use the case of our own research area (bioethics) to illustrate some of the pitfalls of current publishing practices-in particular, the impact on the evaluation of one's work in the area of employment or funding. Even where there are explicit guidelines, they are often disregarded. This disregard, which is often exemplified through the inflation of co-authorship in some research areas, may seem benign to some of us; but it is not. Attribution of co-authorship for reasons other than merit in relation to the publication misrepresents the work towards that publication, and generates unfair competition. We make a case for increasing awareness, for transparency and for more explicit guidelines and regulation of research co-authorship within and across research areas. We examine some of the most sensitive areas of concern and their implications for researchers, particularly junior ones, and we suggest several strategies for future action.

Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review

Health professionals publishing within the field of health sciences continue to experience issues concerning appropriate authorship, which have clinical, ethical, and academic implications. This integrative review sought to explore the key issues concerning authorship from a bioethical standpoint, aiming to explore the key features of the authorship debate. Studies were identified through an electronic search, using the PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus databases of peer-reviewed research, published between 2009 and 2014, limited to English language research, with search terms developed to reflect the current issues of authorship. From among the 279 papers identified, 20 research papers met the inclusion criteria. Findings were compiled and then arranged to identify themes and relationships. The review incorporated a wide range of authorship issues encompassing equal-credited authors, honorary (guest/gift) and ghost authorship, perception/experiences of authorship, and guidelines/policies. This review suggests that the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) recommended guidelines for authorship are not reflected in current authorship practices within the domain of health sciences in both low-and high-impact-factor journals. This devaluing of the true importance of authorship has the potential to affect the validity of authorship, diminish the real contributions of the true authors, and negatively affect patient care.

Criteria for authorship in bioethics

Multiple authorship is becoming increasingly common in bioethics research. There are well-established criteria for authorship in empirical bioethics research but not for conceptual research. It is important to develop criteria for authorship in conceptual publications to prevent undeserved authorship and uphold standards of fairness and accountability. This article explores the issue of multiple authorship in bioethics and develops criteria for determining who should be an author on a conceptual publication in bioethics. Authorship in conceptual research should be based on contributing substantially to: (1) identifying a topic, problem, or issue to study; (2) reviewing and interpreting the relevant literature; (3) formulating, analyzing, and evaluating arguments that support one or more theses; (4) responding to objections and counterarguments; and (5) drafting the manuscript. Authors of conceptual publications should participate substantially in at least two of areas (1)-(5) and also approve the final version. [corrected].

Policies of dental journals for reporting and monitoring authorship and contributorship

Authorship contribution is an important issue that has been discussed frequently in the medical literature. There are many reported cases of 'guest' authors (who sign as authors without meeting authorship criteria) and 'ghost' authors (who are credited to get authorship, but for some reason do not sign the article). Therefore, clear and transparent policies for reporting authorship/contributorship are needed in scientific journals. The objective of this survey was to assess the authorship and contributorship policies that are made publically available on the homepages of dental journals. The policies of 64 impact factor-ranked dental journals were assessed with a 6-item checklist based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines for authorship/contributorship. Most dental journals partially reported the ICMJE guidelines, and therefore the improvement of this reporting is a requirement to promote transparency and integrity in dental research. Moreover, dental journals should develop strategies to improve author adherence to available guidelines for authorship and contributorship.