ArticleForensic sciences research2021
Elucidating authorship issues as an element of research quality at Thailand's National Science and Technology Development Agency.
Article in Forensic sciences research, 2021. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Spotlight on research integrity: international insights on strengthening research culture in the forensic sciences and beyond.Forensic sciences research · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authorship in a scientific publication is an indicator of significant intellectual contribution in scientific work. Regardless of the discipline, it is important for research-related personnel to receive credit and take responsibility for their publications. There are currently several systems of listing authorship that arise from many factors such as research complexity, pressure to obtain funding, hierarchical structure, and promotion. Some of these may unfortunately lead to authorship abuse. Raising awareness and understanding of authorship guidelines can help prevent abuses and disputes. National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) is a national research agency of Thailand with about 2 000 research staff members. The research emphasis of the agency is mainly technology development for application in broad areas, ranging from engineering to medicine, including forensic science. We conducted a survey to identify the level of awareness of NSTDA research staff and their authorship practices. A questionnaire was designed based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines and used to survey 15% of randomly selected NSTDA research staff. Nearly 90% of them responded to the interview. Among the respondents, 60% were not sure about authorship criteria. When presented with the ICMJE criteria, more than 90% agreed with the criteria except for the third one, approval of the final manuscript before submission, 33% of respondents thought that authors are only responsible for their particular contribution. However, nearly 80% agreed that every author is responsible for the integrity of the whole manuscript. These results offered an important foundation for forming a strategy to raise awareness about authorship in NSTDA. Following survey analysis, we organized several seminars and developed learning materials and an authorship guideline to increase the level of awareness of authorship for researchers.
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.