A point that is starting a discussion of authorship is the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. In 1978, a small number of editors of general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, to establish guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became referred to as Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references manufactured by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group evolved and expanded into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which meets annually. The ICMJE gradually has broadened its concerns to add principles that are ethical to publication in biomedical journals. Through the years paper writer, ICMJE has issued updated versions of exactly what are called Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and other statements relating to editorial policy. Probably the most update that is recent in November 2003. Approximately 500 journals that are biomedical towards the guidelines.
Based on the ICMJE guidelines:
The Schцn Case: Taking responsibility for other individuals’ work
- Authorship credit should be centered on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; 2) drafting the content or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and 3) final approval associated with version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
- When a sizable, multi-center group has conducted the job, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These people should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to accomplish author that is journal-specific conflict of great interest disclosure forms. When submitting a bunch author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and should clearly identify all individual authors as well as the group name. Journals will generally list other members of the combined group when you look at the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the combined group name in addition to names of individuals the group has recognized as being directly in charge of the manuscript.
- Acquisition of funding, number of data, or supervision that is general of research group, alone, will not justify authorship.
- Each author need to have participated sufficiently when you look at the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions associated with content.
- Your order of authorship on the byline should really be a joint decision of this co-authors. Authors should always be ready to explain the order by which authors are listed.
- All contributors that do not meet the criteria for authorship ought to be placed in an acknowledgments section.
C. Difficulties with ICMJE recommendations
Two major difficulties with the ICMJE guidelines are that many people in the scientific community are unacquainted with them and lots of scientists try not to sign up for them. Relating to Stanford University’s Mildred Cho and Martha McKee, writing in Science’s Next Wave in 2002, a 1994 study revealed that 21% of authors of basic science papers and 30% of authors of clinical studies had no involvement in the conception or design of a project, the design associated with scholarly study, the analysis and interpretation of information, or perhaps the writing or revisions. Actual practice, this indicates, disagrees with ICMJE recommendations.
Eugene Tarnow, writing in Science and Ethics in 2002, reports findings related to your 1994 study. He cited a 1992 study of 1,000 postdoctoral fellows at the University of California, san francisco bay area, for which less than half knew about any university, school, laboratory, or departmental guidelines for research and publication. Half thought that being head of the laboratory was sufficient for authorship, and slightly fewer thought that getting funding was enough for authorship.
A study by Tarnow of postdoctoral fellows in physics when you look at the 1990s also shows divergences from ICMJE precepts and points with other concerns about authorship when you look at the sciences. Tarnow unearthed that 74% associated with postdoctoral fellows would not recognize the American Physical Society’s guidelines or thought it had been vague or available to interpretations that are multiple. Half the respondents thought the principles suggested that obtaining funding was sufficient for authorship, while the other half failed to. The findings also revealed that in 75% of the postdoc-supervisor relationships authorship criteria was not discussed; in 61% the postdoc’s criteria are not “clearly agreed upon”; as well as in 70% for the relationships the criteria for designating other authors was not “clearly agreed upon.”
Clearly, different laboratories have different practices about who must be included as an author on a paper. At some institutions, it is common for heads of departments to be listed as authors, as so-called “guest authors” or “gift authors,” even though they have never directly contributed towards the research. At other institutions, laboratory heads would routinely include as authors technicians and also require performed many experiments but might not have made a significant intellectual contribution to a paper, while some will give a technician only an acknowledgment at the end of a paper. Some supervisors that are academic have their graduate students collect data, do research, and write up results, yet not give them credit on a paper, while others will give authorship credit to students. Some foreigners in america may feel obligated to place mentors from their home countries on a paper even though they did not participate in the study.
Alternatives to ICMJE
Another problem utilizing the ICMJE guidelines which has come up is that each author is almost certainly not in a position to take full responsibility for the totality of a paper. In a day and time of increasing specialization, one person knowing all the statistical analyses and methodology that is scientific went into getting good results could be unlikely. As a result, some journals, for instance the British Medical Journal and Lancet, have turned out of the idea of an author and instead think with regards to somebody who is happy to take responsibility when it comes to content associated with the paper. The Journal associated with the American Medical Association also now requires authors to submit a questionnaire attesting into the nature of these contribution to a paper.
The British Medical Journal says that listing authorship according to ICMJE guidelines will not clarify that is accountable for overall content and excludes those whose contribution has been the number of data. The journal lists contributors in two ways: it publishes the authors’ names at the beginning of the paper, and lists contributors, some of whom may not be included as authors, at the end, and provides details of who planned, conducted, and reported the work as a result. A number of of this contributors are thought “guarantors” of this paper. The guarantor must make provision for a written statement she accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish that he or. BMJ says that researchers must determine among themselves the particular nature of every man or woman’s contribution, and encourages discussion that is open all participants.
American Psychological Association excerpt on publications.
read the excerpt
A clause concerning contributorship: “Editors are strongly encouraged to build up and implement a contributorship policy, in addition to a policy on identifying who is in charge of the integrity of this act as an entire. with increased knowing of the matter, ICMJE now has in its guidelines”
E. Other authorship responsibilities
An author has many other responsibilities (what is listed below has been adapted from Michael Kalichman’s educational material for the University of California, San Diego) besides clarifying the issue of who is an author and who deserves credit for work:
Checklist for Authors from Science’s Next Wave
- Good writing: Authors must write well and explain methods, data analysis and conclusions so they can be understood by a reader and then replicate findings. Charts, tables and graphs must be clear also.
- Accuracy: Although every effort must certanly be made to n’t have mistakes in a paper, be they in a footnote or from the research itself, unintentional errors creep in. Authors should always be careful.
- Context and citations: The author needs to put research into appropriate context and offer citations in the manuscript that both agree and disagree with the work.
- Publishing negative results: If researchers never publish negative results, it creates a impression that is false biases the literature. If results are not published from a drug trial, as an example, that either shows a medication doesn’t work or has negative effects, clinicians reviewing the literature might get the wrong impression concerning the medication’s value that is true. Because of this, other researchers may continue with studies about a drug that is potentially bad.