ArticleScience and engineering ethics2016
A Simple Framework for Evaluating Authorial Contributions for Scientific Publications.
Article in Science and engineering ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
- The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process.BMC research notes · 2023Article
- Accommodating an Uninvited Guest: Perspectives of Researchers in Switzerland on 'Honorary' Authorship.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Normalized Paper Credit Assignment: A Solution for the Ethical Dilemma Induced by Multiple Important Authors.Science and engineering ethics · 2018Article
- Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles.Research integrity and peer review · 2017Article
- Authorship: Few Myths and Misconceptions.Science and engineering ethics · 2016Article
- Authorship, credit, contribution and problems.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2016Article
- Perceptions of Academic Authorship in Medicine: A Multi-Specialty Survey of Physicians.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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
A simple tool is provided to assist researchers in assessing contributions to a scientific publication, for ease in evaluating which contributors qualify for authorship, and in what order the authors should be listed. The tool identifies four phases of activity leading to a publication-Conception and Design, Data Acquisition, Analysis and Interpretation, and Manuscript Preparation. By comparing a project participant's contribution in a given phase to several specified thresholds, a score of up to five points can be assigned; the contributor's scores in all four phases are summed to yield a total "contribution score", which is compared to a threshold to determine which contributors merit authorship. This tool may be useful in a variety of contexts in which a systematic approach to authorial credit is desired.
Indexed as
Identifiers
26547556What 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.