ArticleCMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne1996
Rating authors' contributions to collaborative research: the PICNIC survey of university departments of pediatrics. Pediatric Investigators' Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada.
Article in CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne, 1996. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- Follow the leader: On the relationship between leadership and scholarly impact in international collaborations.PloS one · 2019Article
- Determinants of the citation rate of medical research publications from a developing country.SpringerPlus · 2014Article
- Developing your career in an age of team science.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2012Article
- Towards a data sharing culture: recommendations for leadership from academic health centers.PLoS medicine · 2008Article
- The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors.EMBO reports · 2007Article
- Principles of authorship in health promotion research.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publiqueArticle
- Authorship issues related to software tools.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine how department chairs in pediatrics rate involvement in medical research and to determine whether faculty deans' offices have written criteria for evaluating research activity when assessing candidates for promotion or tenure.
designCross-sectional mailed survey and telephone survey.
settingCanadian faculties of medicine.
participantsChairs of the 16 Canadian university departments of pediatrics and deans' offices of the 16 university medical faculties.
main outcome measureWeight assigned by department chairs to contributions to published research according to author's research role and position in list of authors and the method of listing authors.
resultsFifteen of 16 chairs responded. Twelve submitted a completed survey, two described their institutions' policies and one responded that the institution had no policy. Eleven reported that faculty members were permitted or requested to indicate research roles on curricula vitae. There was a consensus that all or principal investigators should be listed as authors and that citing the research group as collective author was insufficient. The contribution of first authors was rated highest for articles in which all or principal investigators were listed. The contribution of joint-principal investigators listed as first author was also given a high rating. In the case of collective authorship, the greatest contribution was credited to the principal investigator of the group. Participation of primary investigators in multicentre research was rated as having higher value than participation in single-centre research by seven respondents and as having equal value by four. Only one dean's office had explicit written criteria for evaluating authorship.
conclusionsMost departments of pediatrics and medical faculty dean's offices in Canadian universities have no criteria for assessing the type of contribution made to published research. In view of the trend to use multicentre settings for clinical trials, guidelines for weighting investigators' contributions are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8837534PMC1335447W2158792213What 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.