Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal

Ten Ways to Improve Getting a Scientific Manuscript Accepted

BACKGROUND

Scientific publication is the cornerstone to academic and private practice advancement in patient management and outcomes. Writing a manuscript requires a certain discipline and skill set that can be achieved with diligence and hard work.

METHODS

Anecdotal and review.

RESULTS

Several factors must be considered in scientific writing and journal manuscript submission and acceptance. Choosing where to submit the manuscript; understanding the instructions to authors; disclosing ethically; formatting correctly; never plagiarizing; supplying high quality appropriate images; creating meaningful tables; curating a pertinent but thorough bibliography; having valid, supported conclusions; and respecting timelines.

CONCLUSION

A discussion of relevant components in manuscript writing and journal submission to improve your chances of acceptance.

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.

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.

Inflated Co-authorship Introduces Bias to Current Scientometric Indices

BACKGROUND

Although scientometry gradually became prevalent way of measuring one's research output, there are many inherent drawbacks in main indices that are used: impact factor, number of citations, number of published papers and Hirsch's index.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze effects of inflated co-authorship on values of scientometric indices among authors in biomedicine who participated in published papers with more than 30 co-authors.

METHODS

The study was of cross-sectional type, based on 100 publications randomly extracted from the MEDLINE database. The inclusion criterion was publication with more than 30 authors. The studies with topics not related to humans were excluded from further analysis.

RESULTS

On average about 10% of papers published by the surveyed authors had more than 30 co-authors, but these papers brought more than 40% of all citations and more than 40% of Hirsch's index attributed to these authors. The duration of scientific activity was well correlated to number of citations, Hirsch's index and the number of publications themselves with 30 or less co-authors, while the correlation did not exist with number of citations, Hirsch's index and the number of publications with more than 30 authors. In summary, publications with > 30 authors carry more scientometric points than publications with less co-authors, and the researchers with shorter scientific activity had larger scientometric benefit from publications with more than 30 authors than senior researchers.

CONCLUSION

Unjustified and prolific co-authorship is one of methods for inflation of scientometric indices that are not further reflecting true quality of research output of an individual. Further improvement of scientometric indicators may prevent unjustified co-authorship if it reflects the work invested in a research result.

Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams

Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.

Allonymous science: the politics of placing and shifting credit in public-private nutrition research

Ideally, guidelines reflect an accepted position with respect to matters of concern, ranging from clinical practices to researcher behaviour. Upon close reading, authorship guidelines reserve authorship attribution to individuals fully or almost fully embedded in particular studies, including design or execution as well as significant involvement in the writing process. These requirements prescribe an organisation of scientific work in which this embedding is specifically enabled. Drawing from interviews with nutrition scientists at universities and in the food industry, we demonstrate that the organisation of research labour can deviate significantly from such prescriptions. The organisation of labour, regardless of its content, then, has consequences for who qualifies as an author. The fact that fewer food industry employees qualify is actively used by the food industry to manage the credibility and ownership of their knowledge claims as allonymous science: the attribution of science assisted by authorship guidelines blind to all but one organisational frame.

Equal contributions and credit: an emerging trend in the characterization of authorship in major spine journals during a 10-year period

PURPOSE

The practice of giving certain authors equal credit in scientific publications has become increasingly common in some medical specialties. However, whether this trend also exists in major spine journals remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence and characteristics of the practice of giving authors equal credit in major spine journals.

METHODS

Manual searches were performed to identify original research articles with equally credited authors (ECA) published between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013 in three major spine journals: Spine, European Spine Journal, and The Spine Journal. The number of authors with ECA and their positions in the byline, total number of authors, year of publication, and country of origin were analysed.

RESULTS

The practice of ECA was found in all three journals. Articles with ECA comprised a greater proportion of the total number of publications in each journal in 2013 versus 2004 (Spine, 7.2 vs. 0.2%; European Spine Journal, 7.5 vs. 0.0%; and The Spine Journal, 6.2 vs. 0.0%). There was a statistically significant increasing trend in the annual proportion of papers with ECA for all three spine journals (p < 0.0001). The practice of ECA was applied in nearly every position in the byline, and the first two authors received equal credit in most cases. Articles with ECA were published by authors from various countries and regions around the world. However, none of the three spine journals provided specific guidance on this practice in their author instructions.

CONCLUSIONS

The practice of ECA in original research articles is increasingly common in major spine journals. A guideline for authors regarding when and how to designate equal credit is warranted in the future.

ICMJE authorship criteria are not met in a substantial proportion of manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica

INTRODUCTION

Our aim was to investigate if: (a) authors of Biochemia Medica meet authorship criteria given by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), (b) authorship violations are more frequent in submissions containing some type of scientific misconduct.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Self-reported authorship contributions regarding the three ICMJE criteria were analysed for all submissions to Biochemia Medica (February 2013-April 2015) which were forwarded to peer-review. To test the differences in frequencies we used Chi-squared test. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

186 manuscripts were authored by 804 authors. All ICMJE criteria were met by 487/804 (61%) authors. The first and the last author met all the criteria more frequently than those authors in between (P<0.001). The degree to which ICMJE criteria was met for the first author did not differ between manuscripts authored by only one author and those authored by >1 author (P=0.859). In 9% of the manuscripts ICMJE criteria were not met by a single author. Authors of the 171/186 manuscripts declared that all persons qualify for authorship but only 49% of them satisfied all ICMJE criteria. Authors have failed to acknowledge contributors in 88/186 (47%) manuscripts; instead these contributors have been listed as authors without fulfilling ICMJE criteria. Authorship violation was not more common in 42 manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct (P=0.135).

CONCLUSION

Large proportion of authors of the manuscripts submitted to Biochemia Medica do not fulfil ICMJE criteria. Violation of authorship criteria is not more common for manuscripts with some type of scientific misconduct.

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.

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature

BACKGROUND

Ghostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 1994+ were searched electronically (23 May 2013) using the search terms ghostwrit*, ghostauthor*, ghost AND writ*, ghost AND author*.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All publication types were considered; only publications reporting a numerical estimate of possible ghostwriting prevalence were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers screened the publications; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data to be collected included a numerical estimate of the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (primary outcome measure), definitions of ghostwriting reported, source of the reported prevalence, publication type and year, study design and sample population.

RESULTS

Of the 848 publications retrieved and screened for eligibility, 48 reported numerical estimates for the prevalence of possible ghostwriting. Sixteen primary publications reported findings from cross-sectional surveys or descriptive analyses of published articles; 32 secondary publications cited published or unpublished evidence. Estimates on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in primary and secondary publications varied markedly. Primary estimates were not suitable for meta-analysis because of the various definitions of ghostwriting used, study designs and types of populations or samples. Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken. Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices. Editors and peer reviewers should not accept articles that incorrectly cite or interpret primary publications that report the prevalence of ghostwriting.