ArticleJMIR formative research2022
A Platform (Authorships.org) for the Objective Qualification and Order of Academic Authorship in Medical and Science Journals: Development and Evaluation Study Using the Design Science Research Methodology.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThe qualification and order of authorship in scientific manuscripts are the main disputes in collaborative research work.
objectiveThe aim of this project was to develop an open-access web-based platform for objective decision-making of authorship qualification and order in medical and science journals.
methodsThe design science process methodology was used to develop suitable software for authorship qualification and order. The first part of the software was designed to differentiate between qualification for authorship versus acknowledgment, using items of the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The second part addressed the order of authorship, using the analytical hierarchy process for objective multiple criteria decision-making and ranking. The platform was evaluated qualitatively (n=30) and quantitatively (n=18) using a dedicated questionnaire, by an international panel of medical and biomedical professionals and research collaborators worldwide.
resultsAuthorships.org represents an open-access software compatible with all major platforms and web browsers. Software usability and output were evaluated and presented for 3 existing clinical and biomedical research studies. All 18 international evaluators felt that the Authorships.org platform was easy to use or remained neutral. Moreover, 59% (n=10) were satisfied with the software output results while the rest were unsure, 59% (n=10) would definitely use it for future projects while 41% (n=7) would consider it, 94% (n=16) felt it may prove useful to eliminate disputes regarding authorship, 82% (n=14) felt that it should become mandatory for manuscript submission to journals, and 53% (n=9) raised concerns regarding the potential unethical use of the software as a tool.
conclusionsAuthorships.org allows transparent evaluation of authorship qualification and order in academic medical and science journals. Objectified proof of authorship contributions may become mandatory during manuscript submission in high-quality academic journals.
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.