Authorship and accountability

1
Authorship and accountability

• Contributorship
• Listed authors deserve authorship
• Independence
• The authors enjoyed the prerogatives of
  scientists
• Responsibility
• For the aftercare of the article, including
  corrections and retractions.

2
Contributorship

• Authors should do all of the following
• Substantial contributions
• Conception and design
• Acquisition of data
• Analysis and interpretation
• Drafting and revising the article
• Final approval of the version to be published

ICMJE website www.icmje.org/index.html
3
Contributorship

• Acquisition of funding alone does not justify
  authorship
• All authors should qualify and all who qualify
  should be authors.
• Each author should have participated sufficiently
  to take public responsibility for the content

ICMJE website www.icmje.org/index.html
4
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS ANNALS

• Conception and design
• Analysis and interpretation of the data
• Drafting of the article
• Critical revision of the article
• Final approval of the article
• Provision of study materials or patients
• Statistical expertise
• Obtaining of funding
• Administrative, technical, or logistical support
• Collection and assembly of data

5
Authorship and accountability

• Contributorship
• Listed authors deserve authorship
• Independence
• The authors enjoyed the prerogatives of
  scientists
• Responsibility
• For the aftercare of the article, including
  corrections and retractions.

6
The role of journals

• Scientists, corporate sponsors, and journals each
  have a responsibility to the public.
• The journal veracity, transparency
• A journals reputation enhances the credibility
  of the articles it publishes.
• It has a special role in holding others to
  account

7
Accurate representation of accountability

• In science, the author is accountable
• The authors reputation (and interest in
  retaining it) is the best assurance of accurate
  reporting and honest science.
• To varying degrees, a corporate sponsor is
  responsible for
• Study design, Analysis, Content of manuscript,
  Decision to submit the article

8
Misrepresentation of accountability

• The authors are leaders in the field
• Their peers assume they have the independence of
  a scientist .
• If they dont,
• The credibility of the study rests on a false
  premise
• The journal becomes an accomplice in misleading
  the public

9
Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts (URM)

• International Committee of Medical Journal
  Editors
• Established 1979
• Published the Uniform Requirements
• Broad concerns, to include the ethics of
  authorship and medical publishing
• Meet annually
• Update the Requirements
• Take political action

10
Uniform Requirements as revised May 2001
Authors scientists should not enter into
agreements that interfere with their (control
over the decision to publish the papers they
write) access to the data or their ability to
analyze the data independently, to prepare
manuscripts, and to publish them. Authors should
describe the role of study sponsor(s), if any, in
study design. Editors may choose not to
consider an article if a sponsor has asserted
control over the authors right to publish.
Ann Intern Med. 2001135463-6
11
Annals of Internal MedicineConflict Notification
Page
Attestation of author independence/accountability
Did the authors have full access to all study
data, take full responsibility for accuracy of
the data analysis, and have full authority over
manuscript preparation and the decision to
publish? ____ Yes ____ No (please explain)
Information for authors. Ann Intern Med. 2002
12
Authorship and Accountability

• Dont enter into an arrangement in which you
  appear to be a scientist but have no control
• If you do, be sure that publications represent
  the true relationship accurately

13
Authorship and accountability

• Contributorship
• Listed authors deserve authorship
• Independence
• The authors enjoyed the prerogatives of
  scientists
• Responsibility
• For the aftercare of the article, including
  corrections and retractions.

14
Scientific fraud the Poehlman case

• 204 publications acknowledged 10 to contain
  faked data.
• Principle assume every article is faked until
  proven otherwise.
• The UVM investigation
• Role of co-authors
• Suspect P had access to raw data
• Clean P did not have access to raw data
• Uncertain dont know