Time to redefine authorship.

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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article.Journal of public health in Africa · 2017
   Review
2. Less work, less respect: authors' perceived importance of research contributions and their declared contributions to research articles.PloS one · 2011
   Article
3. The legacy of the Hwang case: research misconduct in biosciences.Science and engineering ethics · 2009
   Article
4. Method for establishing authorship in a multicenter clinical trial.Annals of internal medicine · 2009
   Article
5. Perceptions of authorship criteria: effects of student instruction and scientific experience.Journal of medical ethics · 2007
   Article
6. Authorship: an ethical dilemma of science.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina · 2005
   Review
7. The totally extraperitoneal laparoscopic hernia repair.Surgical endoscopy · 1997
   Article
8. The misconduct of redundant publication.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 1996
   Article
9. Redefining authorship. Drug industry is increasingly allowing employees to be named as authors.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996
   Article
10. Redefining authorship. Relative contribution should be given after each author's name.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 1996
    Article
11. Principles of authorship in health promotion research.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
    Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  Redefining authorship. Drug industry is increasingly allowing employees to be named as authors.1996
• Commented on by
  Redefining authorship. Relative contribution should be given after each author's name.1996
• Commented on by
  Authorship. Guidelines exist on ownership of data and authorship in multicentre collaborations.1997

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as