Evidence map›Paper›PMID 8837534›Full record

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.

H D Davies, J M Langley, D P Speert

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Developing your career in an age of team science.Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2012
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Principles of authorship in health promotion research.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
    Article
  8. Authorship issues related to software tools.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

H D DaviesDepartment of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary. dele.davies@CRHA-Health.Ab.Ca
J M Langley
D P Speert
Alberta Children's Hospital · CADalhousie University · CAUniversity of British Columbia · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AuthorshipCooperative BehaviorFaculty, MedicalPediatricsResearch PersonnelCanadaChildCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMulticenter Studies as TopicResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversities

Identifiers

PMID8837534
PMCPMC1335447
OpenAlexW2158792213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.