ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2026
Who deserves credit, who receives credit? A cross-sectional survey on the handling of co-authorship in medical dissertations in Germany.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Correction: Who deserves credit, who receives credit? A cross-sectional survey on the handling of co-authorship in medical dissertations in Germany.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study investigates the awareness and application of the internationally recognized Vancouver guidelines on co-authorship among doctoral students in medicine across North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW), Germany, the federal state with the highest number of medical faculties (nine) nationwide. Although authorship practices have been widely discussed in medical research, empirical data on doctoral students' awareness of and adherence to these guidelines remain limited, particularly in Germany.
methodsWe carried out a cross-sectional online survey among 147 former doctoral students who completed their dissertations at a medical faculty during the last two years. Participants were recruited via mailing lists, social media, and doctoral graduation ceremonies between December 2024 and June 2025. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. To examine further relationships, correlational analyses were conducted using chi-square tests.
resultsWhile 84% (n = 123/147) of the participants considered the Vancouver authorship guidelines important, 61% (n = 90/147) reported that at least one criterion of the Vancouver guidelines had not been fulfilled in their work. Furthermore, 56% (n = 82/147) reported never having received any information about the guidelines. Among doctoral students supervised by male supervisors (n = 103), female doctoral students had lower odds of receiving information about authorship guidelines (Odds Ratio [OR] = 0.37, 95% CI 0.17-0.83) and of reporting a clear policy regarding them (OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.81) compared with male doctoral students.
conclusionOverall, our findings indicate that, among the surveyed cohort of former medical doctoral students in Germany, self-reported adherence to authorship guidelines was limited and observed gender-related differences. Variations in the perceived dissemination and implementation of ethical authorship practices were associated with the supervisory gender constellation. These results underscore the need for more robust institutional frameworks, systematic education on authorship ethics, and clearer accountability mechanisms in the supervision of doctoral research.
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.