ArticleBMJ (Clinical research ed.)1997
The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty.
Article in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 1997. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 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
44 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines.PloS one · 2011Pooled it
- 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
- Awareness, usage and perceptions of authorship guidelines: an international survey of biomedical authors.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Researchers' Perceptions of Ethical Authorship Distribution in Collaborative Research Teams.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Misconduct and Misbehavior Related to Authorship Disagreements in Collaborative Science.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Taiwanese Researchers' Perceptions of Questionable Authorship Practices: An Exploratory Study.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Article
- Understanding of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Authorship Criteria Among Faculty Members of Pharmacy and Other Health Sciences in Jordan.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2018Article
- Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration.Research integrity and peer review · 2018Article
- Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?PloS one · 2017Article
- Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
- Authorship matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities in multi-author scientific articles.Science and engineering ethics · 2014Article
- Article
- Faculty Member's Views, Attitude and Current Practice As Regards International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Criteria for Authorship.Iranian journal of public health · 2013Article
- Medical students' decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study.Science and engineering ethics · 2013Article
- "Conferring authorship": biobank stakeholders' experiences with publication credit in collaborative research.PloS one · 2013Article
- Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal.BMC medical research methodology · 2012Article
- Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies.Science and engineering ethics · 2012Review
- How to write an article: Preparing a publishable manuscript!CytoJournal · 2012Article
- Authorship issues.Lung India : official organ of Indian Chest Society · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship.
designInterview survey of stratified sample of researchers.
settingUniversity medical faculty. SUBJECTS: 66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments.
main outcome measuresAwareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems.
results50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%).
conclusionThere seems to be a gap between editors' criteria for authorship and researchers' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9112845PMC2126416What 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.