ArticleJournal of medical ethics2007
Perceptions of authorship criteria: effects of student instruction and scientific experience.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors.BMJ open · 2020Article
- 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
- Factors that Affect Integrity of Authorship of Scientific Meeting Abstracts.AJOB primary research · 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
- Good season ahead.Croatian medical journal · 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
- Fifteenth anniversary of the Croatian Medical Journal: still moving ahead.Croatian medical journal · 2008Article
- Reliability of disclosure forms of authors' contributions.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2007Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyse medical students', graduate students' and doctors' and medical teachers' perceptions of research contributions as criteria for authorship in relation to the authorship criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).
designMedical students with (n = 152) or without (n = 85) prior instruction on ICMJE criteria, graduate students/doctors (n = 125) and medical teachers (n = 112) rated the importance of 11 contributions as authorship qualifications. They also reported single contributions eligible for authorship, as well as acceptable combinations of two or three qualifying contributions.
resultsConception and design, Analysis and interpretation and Drafting of article formed the most important cluster in all four groups. Students without prior instruction rated Critical revision and Final approval lower than the other three groups. "Final approval" was a part of the least important cluster in all groups except among students with instruction.
conclusionsConception and design, Analysis and interpretation and Drafting of article were recognised as the most important of the ICMJE criteria by all participants. They can be considered independent of previous instruction or experience. Final approval and Critical revision should be actively taught as important authorship criteria to future scientists.
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.