ArticleAJOB primary research2013
Factors that Affect Integrity of Authorship of Scientific Meeting Abstracts.
Article in AJOB primary research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Honorary authorship and symbolic violence.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStrict criteria for manuscript authorship exist to guide decisions on who should be considered an author. Less is known about how authorship for scientific meetings is determined. Our goal was to explore factors that influence decisions about authorship of conference abstracts.
methodsIn 2010, we conducted qualitative focus groups with a stratified sample of 36 trainees, 19 junior faculty, and 11 senior faculty. Focus group transcripts were coded using a coding scheme derived from an initial review of the transcripts and a preliminary theoretical framework, which was based on the literature, anecdotes, and personal experience.
resultsWe identified 6 themes related to abstract authorship: comparisons with manuscripts; collaboration dynamics; time; experience and professional development; standards for authorship; and funding. We found that: views of abstracts as a lesser form of publication lead to diminished integrity of authorship; trainee inexperience and the dynamics of collaboration adversely influence the integrity of authorship independently of the perceived difference between an abstract and an article; and early communication about authorship appears to increase the integrity of authorship decisions.
conclusionsAuthors do not hold abstracts to the same standard as manuscripts. As such, authorship decisions are frequently inconsistent with authorship criteria pertaining to manuscripts. Such inconsistencies might be improved with stricter institutional rules, clear and consistent authorship guidelines for abstracts submitted to conferences, a requirement that all authors verify their contributions to the abstract, and additional training in the responsible conduct of 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.