ArticleScience and engineering ethics2014
Authorship matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Authorship Policies at U.S. Doctoral Universities: A Review and Recommendations for Future Policies.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Pooled it
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
- A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia.Accountability in research · 2024Article
- The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Passive Contribution of ChatGPT to Scientific Papers.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Article
- Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure.Science and engineering ethics · 2022Article
- Article
- No room for ambiguity: The concepts of appropriate and inappropriate authorship in scientific publications.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Authorship Not Taught and Not Caught in Undergraduate Research Experiences at a Research University.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- 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
- Authorship: from credit to accountability. Reflections from the Editors' Network.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2019Review
- Authorship: from credit to accountability : Reflections from the Editors' Network.Netherlands heart journal : monthly journal of the Netherlands Society of Cardiology and the Netherlands Heart Foundation · 2019Article
- Authorship Trends Over the Past 30-Years in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering.Annals of biomedical engineering · 2019Article
- Authorship: From Credit to Accountability Reflections From the Editors´ Network.Anatolian journal of cardiology · 2019Article
- Carbon budgets of potential tropical perennial grass cropping scenarios for bioenergy feedstock production.Carbon balance and management · 2018Article
- Honorary authorship and symbolic violence.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2017Article
- Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We propose a rational method for addressing an important question-who deserves to be an author of a scientific article? We review various contentious issues associated with this question and recommend that the scientific community should view authorship in terms of contributions and responsibilities, rather than credits. We propose a new paradigm that conceptually divides a scientific article into four basic elements: ideas, work, writing, and stewardship. We employ these four fundamental elements to modify the well-known International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines. The modified ICMJE guidelines are then used as the basis to develop an approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author articles. The outcome of the approach is an authorship matrix, which can be used to answer several nagging questions related to authorship.
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.