ArticleSpringerPlus2016
An emerging trend of equal authorship credit in major public health journals.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Equal Co-authorship Practices: Review and Recommendations.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Review
- Survey of equal contributions in biomedical research publications.Accountability in research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to identify the longitudinal trends and characteristics of the practice of explicitly giving equal credit to multiple authors of publications in public health journals. Manual searches were conducted to identify original research articles, published in five public health journals with the highest IFs according to the "2012 JCR Science Edition" between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2013, which awarded equal credit to multiple authors (Epidemiologic Reviews, Environmental Health Perspectives, the International Journal of Epidemiology, Epidemiology, and the Annual Review of Public Health). The Instructions to Authors in the five journals were also examined with regard to information about giving equal credit to multiple authors.
findingsStatistically significant differences were noted in the annual prevalence in Environmental Health Perspectives, International Journal of Epidemiology, and Epidemiology (r = 0.753, P = 0.012; r = 0.894, P = 0.000; r = 0.522, P = 0.122, respectively). The first two authors listed in the by-line received equal credit in the majority of articles, but this practice was also extended to authors in nearly every position on the by-line in some publications. The authors given equal credit in articles appearing in Environmental Health Perspectives, International Journal of Epidemiology, and Epidemiology were primarily from European and North American countries. Finally, none of the journals provided specific guidance regarding this practice in their Instructions to Authors.
conclusionsAn emerging trend of giving equal credit to multiple authors is observed in the public health journals. This practice should be better addressed in the guidance provided by journals to authors.
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.