ReviewScience and engineering ethics2012
Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies.
Review in Science and engineering ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 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
41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A worldwide itinerary of research ethics in science for a better social responsibility and justice: a bibliometric analysis and review.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2025Pooled it
- Processes to manage analyses and publications in a phase III multicenter randomized clinical trial.Trials · 2014Trial
- Continuing Authorship Proliferation in the Cardiothoracic Surgical Literature.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2026Article
- Equitable authorship in Global Gynecologic Oncology trials: the Asia Pacific Gynecologic Oncology Trials Group (APGOT) framework.Journal of gynecologic oncology · 2026Article
- Scientific misconduct responsibility attribution: An empirical study on byline position and team identity in Chinese medical papers.PloS one · 2024Article
- Reducing tensions and expediting manuscript submission via an authorship agreement for early-career researchers: A pilot study.Accountability in research · 2023Article
- Passive Contribution of ChatGPT to Scientific Papers.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Article
- Authorship Issues When Articles are Retracted Due to Research Misconduct and Then Resubmitted.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- Coauthorship by patients and other stakeholders with limited knowledge of scientific publishing practices.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2021Article
- Reimagining the peer-review system for translational health science journals.Clinical and translational science · 2021Review
- How to Handle Co-authorship When Not Everyone's Research Contributions Make It into the Paper.Science and engineering ethics · 2021Article
- Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Meta-research examining author gender, geographic location, and institutional affiliation.PloS one · 2021Article
- No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Academic productivity and obstacles encountered during residency training: A survey among residents in orthopedics and traumatology programs in Turkey.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2020Article
- Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While there has been significant discussion in the health sciences and ethics literatures about problems associated with publication practices (e.g., ghost- and gift-authorship, conflicts of interest), there has been relatively little practical guidance developed to help researchers determine how they should fairly allocate credit for multi-authored publications. Fair allocation of credit requires that participating authors be acknowledged for their contribution and responsibilities, but it is not obvious what contributions should warrant authorship, nor who should be responsible for the quality and content of the scientific research findings presented in a publication. In this paper, we review arguments presented in the ethics and health science literatures, and the policies or guidelines proposed by learned societies and journals, in order to explore the link between author contribution and responsibility in multi-author multidisciplinary health science publications. We then critically examine the various procedures used in the field to help researchers fairly allocate authorship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21312000What 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.