ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina2005
Authorship: an ethical dilemma of science.
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elucidating authorship issues as an element of research quality at Thailand's National Science and Technology Development Agency.Forensic sciences research · 2021Article
- Further thoughts on authorship: gift authorship.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2012Article
- Representation of less-developed countries in Pharmacology journals: an online survey of corresponding authors.BMC medical research methodology · 2011Article
- Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles.Frontiers in psychology · 2011Article
- Undeserved authorship: too much of a good thing.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2010Article
- Authors' opinions on publication in relation to annual performance assessment.BMC medical education · 2010Article
- Article
- Editorial : thoughts on authorship.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2008Article
- Awareness of authorship criteria and conflict: survey in a medical institution in India.MedGenMed : Medscape general medicine · 2006Article
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
CONTEXT AND
objectiveThe scientific and technological progress that has taken place since the 1960s has brought an ever-growing volume of scientific research, and inflation in co-authorship. Over this period, it has been observed that an increasing number of publications have listed authors or co-authors whose participation in the published research was minimal or even nonexistent. The objective of this work was to analyze reports in the literature regarding misconduct in authorship: its types, chief causes, consequences and ethical guidelines; and to outline proposals for greater ethical commitment in scientific publication. DESIGN AND
settingNarrative review undertaken at Faculdade de Medicina de Itajubá, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
methodsAnalysis of publications about authorship using the Medline, Lilacs and SciELO databases. RESULTS AND
conclusionsFrequent types of misconduct were gift authorship and divided and redundant publications. The chief causes of these practices seem to be the pressure exerted by academia and the desire for social and professional development. Such factors have brought an increase in unethical behavior. This bias in science continues despite the criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Vancouver group. RECOMMENDATIONS: Various actions are proposed for educational institutions, research development agencies, regulatory agencies and professional associations. The aim is to establish an evaluation policy that gives primacy to the quality of publications and sets ethical principles for scientific research.
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.