ArticleJournal of medical ethics2005
Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- Writing for "International Orthopaedics": authorship, fraud, and ethical concerns.International orthopaedics · 2021Article
- Elucidating authorship issues as an element of research quality at Thailand's National Science and Technology Development Agency.Forensic sciences research · 2021Article
- Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Understanding of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Authorship Criteria Among Faculty Members of Pharmacy and Other Health Sciences in Jordan.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
- Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Article
- Honorary authorship and symbolic violence.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
- Article
- On the authorship criteria.Dental research journal · 2014Article
- Faculty Member's Views, Attitude and Current Practice As Regards International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Criteria for Authorship.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
- Medical students' decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
- "Conferring authorship": biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research.PloS one · 2013Article
- Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies.Science and engineering ethics · 2012Review
- Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles.Frontiers in psychology · 2011Article
- Less work, less respect: authors' perceived importance of research contributions and their declared contributions to research articles.PloS one · 2011Article
- Quantification of authors' contributions and eligibility for authorship: randomized study in a general medical journal.Journal of general internal medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the knowledge and behaviour of researchers regarding criteria for authorship, and the practices of ghost and gift authorship.
designSemidirective interviews of senior clinical researchers.
settingUniversity hospital.
participantsThirty-nine main investigators of clinical research programmes. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Awareness and use of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship, and perceptions about ghost and gift authorship.
resultsA total of 48 protocols submitted by 42 principal investigators between 1994 and 1996 were identified. Thirty-nine investigators were contacted; 37 (one of whom delegated a co-author) were interviewed between May 2002 and March 2003. Two co-authors of two principal investigators were also interviewed. In all, 42 studies were represented. The interviews lasted for 40-90 minutes and were conducted with openness and respect for confidentiality. The choice of names of co-authors did not follow the ICMJE recommendations. Half of the respondents stated they were aware of criteria for authorship and knew of ICMJE, but most of them did not cite any of the ICMJE criteria among those they applied in deciding authorship. Most of them disagreed with the obligation to meet the three criteria justifying co-authorship because they found these too rigid and inapplicable. Gift authorship was a common practice; 59% of the respondents had been a recipient of gift authorship. Twenty-five (64%) were aware of ghost authorship and the majority considered it questionable and blameworthy.
conclusionsThe ICMJE criteria were ignored by clinicians at a university hospital. Ghost and gift authorship were frequent among them. There is a need for French guidelines for authorship to be prepared and implemented.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.