A point that is starting a discussion of authorship may be 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 determine guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group evolved and expanded in to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which meets annually. The ICMJE gradually has broadened its concerns to add ethical principles related to publication in biomedical journals. Over time, ICMJE has issued updated versions of what exactly are called Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals along with other statements relating to editorial policy. The absolute most update that is recent in November 2003. Approximately 500 biomedical journals subscribe to the guidelines.
In line with the ICMJE guidelines:
The Schцn Case: Taking responsibility for others’ work
- Authorship credit ought to be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of information, or analysis and interpretation of information; 2) drafting the content or revising it critically for important content that is intellectual and 3) final approval of the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
- When a large, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. Him or her should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask these individuals to perform author that is journal-specific conflict of great interest disclosure forms. When submitting an organization author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and may clearly identify all individual authors along with the group name. Journals will generally list other members of the group when you look at the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the combined group name while the names of an individual the group has defined as being directly accountable for the manuscript.
- Acquisition of funding, number of data, or supervision that is general of research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
- Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility that is public appropriate portions of this content.
- Your order of authorship on the byline should be a decision that is joint of co-authors. Authors ought to be willing to explain the order in which authors are listed.
- All contributors who do not meet the requirements for authorship must be placed in an acknowledgments section.
C. Problems with ICMJE recommendations
Two major issues with the ICMJE guidelines are that numerous members of the community that is scientific unaware of them and several scientists usually do not subscribe to them. According to Stanford University’s Mildred Cho and Martha McKee, writing in Science’s Next Wave in 2002, a 1994 study revealed that 21% homework solution website 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 style for the scholarly study, the analysis and interpretation of information, or the writing or revisions. Actual practice, it appears, disagrees with ICMJE recommendations.
Eugene Tarnow, writing in Science and Ethics in 2002, reports findings related towards the 1994 study. He cited a 1992 study of 1,000 fellows that are postdoctoral the University of California, san francisco bay area, by which less than half knew about any university, school, laboratory, or departmental guidelines for research and publication. Half believed that being head regarding the laboratory was sufficient for authorship, and slightly fewer believed that getting funding was enough for authorship.
A research by Tarnow of postdoctoral fellows in physics into the 1990s also shows divergences from ICMJE precepts and points to other concerns about authorship into the sciences. Tarnow found that 74% for the postdoctoral fellows failed to recognize the American Physical Society’s guidelines or thought it was vague or ready to accept interpretations that are multiple. Half the respondents thought the principles suggested that obtaining funding was sufficient for authorship, although the other half failed to. The findings also revealed that in 75% associated with the postdoc-supervisor relationships authorship criteria had not been discussed; in 61% the postdoc’s criteria were not “clearly agreed upon”; and in 70% regarding the relationships the criteria for designating other authors had not been “clearly agreed upon.”
Clearly, different laboratories have different practices about who should be included as an author on a paper. At some institutions, it’s quite common for heads of departments to be listed as authors, as so-called “guest authors” or “gift authors,” although they have never directly contributed to 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 academic supervisors may have their graduate students collect data, do research, and write up results, yet not give them credit on a paper, while some will provide authorship credit to students. Some foreigners in america may feel obligated to place mentors from their house countries on a paper and even though they would not take part in the investigation.
Alternatives to ICMJE
Another problem with all the ICMJE guidelines who has show up is the fact that each author is almost certainly not able to take responsibility that is full the totality of a paper. In a day and age of increasing specialization, one person knowing most of the statistical analyses and methodology that is scientific went into getting worthwhile results may be unlikely. Some journals, such as the British Medical Journal and Lancet, have turned away from the idea of an author and instead think in terms of someone who is willing to take responsibility for the content of the paper as a result. The Journal regarding the American Medical Association also now requires authors to submit an application attesting into the nature of their contribution to a paper.
The British Medical Journal says that listing authorship according to ICMJE guidelines does not clarify who is in charge of overall content and excludes those whose contribution happens to be the collection 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 considered “guarantors” of this paper. The guarantor must definitely provide a written statement that she or he accepts full responsibility for the conduct for the study, had access to the info, and controlled your decision to write. BMJ says that researchers must determine among themselves the precise nature of each man or woman’s contribution, and encourages open discussion among all participants.
American Psychological Association excerpt on publications.
read the excerpt
A clause concerning contributorship: “Editors are strongly encouraged to produce and implement a contributorship policy, as well as a policy on identifying that is responsible for the integrity regarding the work as a complete. with additional awareness of the issue, ICMJE now has with 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 a reader can understand them and also replicate findings. Charts, tables and graphs must be clear also.
- Accuracy: Although every effort must certanly be designed to not have mistakes in a paper, be they in a footnote or through the research itself, unintentional errors creep in. Authors should be careful.
- Context and citations: the writer has to put research into appropriate context and provide citations when you look at the manuscript that both agree and disagree aided by the work.
- Publishing negative results: If researchers never publish negative results, it creates a false impression and biases the literature. If results are not published from a drug trial, for example, that either shows a medication does not work or has negative effects, clinicians reviewing the literature could easily get the wrong impression about the medication’s true value. Because of this, other researchers may continue with studies about a potentially bad drug.