ArticleBMC research notes2023
The CalculAuthor: determining authorship using a simple-to-use, fair, objective, and transparent process.
Article in BMC research notes, 2023. 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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying the motivators, benefits and barriers to sharing participant-level data and samples: results from an international online survey of acute febrile illness cohort teams.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Dragon Kill Points: applying a transparent working template to relieve authorship stress.BMC biology · 2026Review
- Information-seeking behaviours, attitudes and practices on sexual and reproductive health among healthcare providers in Pakistan.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- The cognitive and psychosocial effects of online learning in medical students during and after the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods study from Karachi, Pakistan.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Authorship transparency and equity in otolaryngology and maxillofacial surgery: current practices and the potential impact of large language models.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2025Article
- Redesigning mental health research systems from within: the role of peer-led co-production.Frontiers in health services · 2025Article
- Comparing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes following valve-sparing versus transannular patch repair of tetralogy of Fallot: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2024Article
- 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authorship determination on a research article remains a largely subjective process. Existing guidelines on authorship taxonomy lack objectivity and are more useful in determining who deserves authorship rather than determining the order of authors. To promote best practices in authorship taxonomy, we developed an authorship rubric that provides a fair, objective, and transparent means of crediting authorship. We christened this tool the "CalculAuthor". The following steps are to be undertaken to create a scoring system based on the requirements of the projects: determining creditable criteria, assigning credit weightages, deciding levels of contribution, determining each author's contribution, calculating authorship scores and ranking. These must be performed by or in close collaboration with the primary investigator (PI), with conflicts being resolved at the PI's discretion. All team members should be informed about the authorship determination process early in the project and their agreement regarding its use must be obtained. While the CalculAuthor was developed to be used in medical research, its customizability enables it to be employed in any field of academia. We recommend that the CalculAuthor be piloted within institutions before its mainstream adoption, and any institution-specific factors should be considered to make the process more efficient and suitable.
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.