AUTHORSHIP FOR SCIENTIFIC PAPER

1
AUTHORSHIP FOR SCIENTIFIC PAPER

• Dr. Hassan Al Hail
• MD, Neurology -FachArzt/ European Epilepsy fellow

3rd Regional Conference of Medical Journals in
the EMR Shiraz Medical Journalism Conference
Consultant Neurologist/Epil. Hamad Medical
Corporation Doha, Qatar
2
Content

• Definitions of authorship
• Authorship Guideline
• Issues of authorship
• Authors responsibilities
• Why publish your research findings ?
• How to select the Journal ?
• Who should be granted authorship credit ?
• Who should NOT be granted authorship ?
• Fraudulent authorship
• Conclusions

3

• Current definitions of authorship in medical
  research are not working
• Definitions of authorship are not well known and
  are often not accepted even when they are known
  and some people who appear as authors of medical
  studies have done nothing, while others who have
  done a great deal of work are not named.
• Authorship is an explicit way of assigning
  responsibility and giving credit for intellectual
  work. The two are linked.
• Authorship practices should be judged by how
  honestly they reflect actual contributions to the
  final product.
• Authorship is important to the reputation,
  academic promotion, and grant support of the
  individuals involved as well as to the strength
  and reputation of their institution.
• BMJ 19963121501-1502 (15 June) 1996
  President and Fellows of Harvard College Harvard
  Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street, Boston, MA
  02115. [phone]. Adopted December 17, 1999

4

• Definition of authorship that gave credit to
  those who deserved it and responsibility (for the
  honesty and accuracy of research reports) to
  those who should take it
• Guidelines for authorship, drawn up by the
  International Committee of Medical Journal
  Editors (the Vancouver group) in 1985
• Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street,
  Poston, MA 02115. [phone]. Adopted
  December 17, 1999
• BMJ 19963121501-1502 (15 June)

5

• State that "each author should have participated
  sufficiently in the work to take public
  responsibility for the content" and "that
  authorship credit should be based only on
  substantial contributions to
• a) Conception and design, or analysis and
  interpretation of data and to
• b) Drafting the article or revising
• c) Final approval of the version to be published
• All other contributions, including data
  collection and raising funds, should be mentioned
  in the acknowledgements.

6

• Authorship Guideline
• Everyone who has made substantial intellectual
  contributions to the work should be an author.
• Everyone who has made other substantial
  contributions should be acknowledged
• Honorary or guest authorship is not acceptable.
• Acquisition of funding and provision of
  technical services, patients, or materials, while
  they may be essential to the work, are not in
  themselves sufficient contributions to justify
  authorship.
• 1996 President and Fellows of Harvard College
  Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street,
  Boston, MA 02115. [phone]. Adopted
  December 17, 1999

7
1996 President and Fellows of Harvard College
Harvard Medical School, 25 Shattuck Street,
Boston, MA 02115. [phone]. Adopted
December 17, 1999

• All authors should participate in writing the
  manuscript by reviewing drafts and approving the
  final version.
• One author should take primary responsibility for
  the work as a whole even if he or she does not
  have an in-depth understanding of every part of
  the work.
• This primary author should assure that all
  authors meet basic standards for authorship and
  should prepare a concise, written description of
  their contributions to the work, which has been
  approved by all authors. This record should
  remain with the sponsoring department.

8
Issues of authorship

• multiple authorship
• misconduct among coauthors
• guest and honorary authorship
• order of authorship
• credit for those not qualifying for authorship
• divided and duplicate publication

9
Authors responsibilities

• Accurateness in design, analysis and
  interpretation
• Safeguarding patients rights during the study
• Reading all cited references completely
• Writing and revision of the paper
• Selection of the journal
• Proof reading the manuscript

10
Multiple authorship in peer-reviewed medical
journals

• Number of authors on original articles increased
  43 over 20 year period
• Increase in senior researchers (profs and
  chairmen) to the disadvantage of junior staff
• Drenth et al. JAMA 1998280219

11
Why publish your research findings ?

• The manuscript embodies the product of your
  research
• Allows others to replicate and extend work
• Means of communication
• Measure of credibility of the institution
• Coins of credibility in academic promotion

12
How to select the Journal ?

• Scientific importance of your findings
• original
• confirmatory
• preliminary
• Audience, geographical impact
• Medline
• Impact factor

13
Some Journal parameters

• Impact factor frequency average article in a
  journal has been cited in a particular year
• Immediacy index how quickly the average article
  in a specific journal is cited
• Cited half-life reflects ongoing use of a
  particular journal

14
Who should be granted authorship credit ?
Criteria International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors

• Concept and design, or analysis and
  interpretation of data
• Drafting or critical revision for important
  intellectual content
• Final approval of the version to be published
• All three conditions must be met!

15
Who should NOT be granted authorship ?
Where to draw the line???

• holding the door while the patient is brought
  in
• the nurse who takes the blood samples during
  the night
• the laboratory technician who analyses the
  samples
• the chairman who requests his registrar to
  write the paper
• the colleague who helps in the lay out and
  assembly of a poster
• the statistician who only analyzes the data
• the chairman who signs the research project or
  looks for funding
• the colleague who edits the manuscript or
  provides advise
• but.. deserves Acknowledgment

16
Fraudulent authorship

• gift authorship
• honorary authorship
• ghost authorship
• hierarchical authorship

17
Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in
peer-reviewed medical journals

• honorary authorship 19
• ghost authorship 11
• Particularly review articles prone to honorary
  authorship
• Flanagin et al. JAMA 1998280222

18
Reasons for fraudulent authorship

• obligation to publish
• enhancing chances of publication
• repay favors, motivate team, encourage
  collaboration
• maintain good relationships

Bhopal. BMJ 19973141009
19
Fraudulent polyauthoritis

• Publish or perish
• Academic promotion
• Polyauthoritis giftosa

20
Conclusions

• respect the rules of authorship (international
  criteria)
• credibility based on value of the paper NOT
  counts
• there is still a gap between editors criteria
  for authorship and researchers practice

21
(No Transcript)
22

• gift" authorship--where heads of department are
  listed as authors even when they have done
  nothing --was common.
• This "film credit" approach would eliminate gift
  authorship ("contribution head of department").
  
• It would eliminate ghost authorship--where big
  name researchers are paid to put their name to
  reports of research that has been sponsored and
  written up by industry