ArticleScience and engineering ethics2003
Can authorship policies help prevent scientific misconduct? What role for scientific societies?
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Taiwanese Researchers' Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Scientific misconduct and accountability in teams.PloS one · 2019Article
- Gift, honorary or guest authorship.Spinal cord · 2018Article
- The visibility of scientific misconduct: A review of the literature on retracted journal articles.Current sociology. La Sociologie contemporaine · 2017Review
- "Conferring authorship": biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research.PloS one · 2013Article
- Environmental Factors Contributing to Wrongdoing in Medicine: A Criterion-Based Review of Studies and Cases.Ethics & behavior · 2012Article
- Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment.BMC medical education · 2010Article
- Authorship: why not just toss a coin?American journal of physiology. Cell physiology · 2008Article
- Causal factors implicated in research misconduct: evidence from ORI case files.Science and engineering ethics · 2007Article
- Scientific societies and research integrity: what are they doing and how well are they doing it?Science and engineering ethics · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to encourage and help inform active discussion of authorship policies among members of scientific societies. The article explains the history and rationale of the influential criteria for authorship developed by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, examines questions about those criteria that emerge from authorship policies adopted by several U.S. medical schools, and summarizes the arguments for replacing authorship with the contributor-guarantor model. Finally, it concludes with a plea for scientific societies to play a prominent role in the ongoing debates about authorship and the alternatives as part of their efforts to encourage ethical conduct among their members. Whether or not scientific societies develop authorship policies of their own, they should undertake vigorous educational efforts to keep their new members adequately informed about the importance of authorship practices in ethical scientific research and publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12774656What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.