Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21943265›Full record

ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2011

Criteria for authorship in bioethics.

David B Resnik, Zubin Master

Erratum issuedAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Responsibility is not required for authorship.Journal of medical ethics · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

David B ResnikNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709, USA. resnikd@niehs.nih.gov
Zubin Master

Funding

Ethical, social, and legal issues in environmental health researchZIAES102646 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI RESNIK, DAVID · 2009 to 2025
$1.8M
Intramural NIH HHS ZIA ES102646
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Multiple authorship is becoming increasingly common in bioethics research. There are well-established criteria for authorship in empirical bioethics research but not for conceptual research. It is important to develop criteria for authorship in conceptual publications to prevent undeserved authorship and uphold standards of fairness and accountability. This article explores the issue of multiple authorship in bioethics and develops criteria for determining who should be an author on a conceptual publication in bioethics. Authorship in conceptual research should be based on contributing substantially to: (1) identifying a topic, problem, or issue to study; (2) reviewing and interpreting the relevant literature; (3) formulating, analyzing, and evaluating arguments that support one or more theses; (4) responding to objections and counterarguments; and (5) drafting the manuscript. Authors of conceptual publications should participate substantially in at least two of areas (1)-(5) and also approve the final version. [corrected].

Indexed as

AuthorshipBioethicsGuidelines as TopicHumansManuscripts as TopicPublicationsSocial Responsibility

Identifiers

PMID21943265
PMCPMC3238683

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.