ArticlePerspectives in clinical research
Accountability or acknowledgment? Untangling authorship and medical writing support in scientific publishing.
Article in Perspectives in clinical research. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The evolving landscape of scientific publishing has brought renewed attention to the concepts of authorship, contributorship, and acknowledgments. While authorship is a marker of intellectual contribution and accountability, the role of professional medical writers in the development of scientific and biomedical publications has evolved significantly, particularly in the context of industry-supported research. Drawing upon established guidance such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT), and other international standards, this review highlights credible authorship criteria, clarifies the role of medical writers in the publication process, and underscores the necessity of transparent and appropriate acknowledgment of their contribution to a publication. The current frameworks and perspectives are synthesized to support informed decision-making for authors and foster responsible recognition of medical writers as contributors in scientific publishing.
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.