ArticleJournal of medical ethics2011
Authorship policies of bioethics journals.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2011. 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.
- Understanding of Authorship Guidelines and the Frequency of Authorship Misuse: A Descriptive Cross-Sectional Study in the State of Qatar.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- An Ethical Exploration of Increased Average Number of Authors Per Publication.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- The Malversations of Authorship - Current Status in Academic Community and How to Prevent It.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2018Article
- The author who wasn't there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks.PloS one · 2018Article
- New Issues for New Methods: Ethical and Editorial Challenges for an Experimental Philosophy.Science and engineering ethics · 2017Article
- Writers Blocked: On the Wrongs of Research Co-authorship and Some Possible Strategies for Improvement.Science and engineering ethics · 2015Article
- Ongoing ethical issues concerning authorship in biomedical journals: an integrative review.International journal of nanomedicine · 2015Review
- Criteria for authorship in bioethics.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2011Article
- Conflicts of interest policies for authors, peer reviewers, and editors of bioethics journals.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inappropriate authorship is a common problem in biomedical research and may be becoming one in bioethics, due to the increase in multiple authorship. This paper investigates the authorship policies of bioethics journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for researchers who submit articles for publication, which can help deter inappropriate authorship. It was found that 63.3% of bioethics journals provide no guidance on authorship; 36.7% provide guidance on which contributions merit authorship, 23.3% provide guidance on which contributions do not merit authorship, 23.3% require authors to take responsibility for their contributions or for the article as a whole, 20% provide guidance on which contributions merit an acknowledgement but not authorship, 6.7% require authors to describe their contributions, and only 3.3% distinguish between authorship in empirical and conceptual research. To provide authors with effective guidance and promote integrity in bioethics research, bioethics journals should adopt authorship policies that address several important topics, such as the qualifications for authorship, describing authorship contributions, taking responsibility for the research and the difference between authorship in empirical and conceptual 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.