A point that is starting a discussion of authorship may be the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. In 1978, a small group of editors of general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, to determine guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted to their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references developed by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group evolved and expanded into the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which meets annually. The ICMJE gradually has broadened its concerns to add principles that are ethical to publication in biomedical journals. Through the years, ICMJE has issued updated versions of what are called Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals along with other statements relating to policy that is editorial. Probably the most update that is recent in November 2003. Approximately 500 biomedical journals subscribe to your guidelines.
According to the ICMJE guidelines:
The Schцn Case: Taking responsibility for others’ work
- Authorship credit should really be according to 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of information; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important content that is intellectual and 3) final approval regarding the version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.
- When a large, multi-center group has conducted the task, the group should identify the people who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These individuals should fully meet the requirements for authorship defined above and editors will ask these people to perform author that is journal-specific conflict of great interest disclosure forms. When submitting a bunch author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the most well-liked citation and really should clearly identify all individual authors plus the group name. Journals will generally list other people in the combined group into the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the combined group name while the names of people the group has identified as being directly accountable for the manuscript.
- Acquisition of funding, number of data, or general supervision of this research group, alone, does not justify authorship.
- Each author must have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.
- Your order of authorship in the byline should really be a decision that is joint of co-authors. Authors must be ready to explain the order by which authors are listed.
- All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship must certanly be listed in an acknowledgments section.
C. Problems with ICMJE recommendations
Two major difficulties with the ICMJE guidelines are that lots of members of the community that is scientific unacquainted with them and several scientists do not sign up to them. Relating to Stanford University’s Mildred Cho and Martha McKee, writing in Science’s Next Wave write my paper for me in 2002, a 1994 study showed that 21% of authors of basic science papers and 30% of authors of clinical studies had no involvement into the conception or design of a project, the style of the scholarly study, the analysis and interpretation of data, or even the writing or revisions. Actual practice, it appears, disagrees with ICMJE recommendations.
Eugene Tarnow, writing in Science and Ethics in 2002, reports findings related to the 1994 study. He cited a 1992 study of 1,000 postdoctoral fellows at the University of California, bay area, in which fewer than half knew about any university, school, laboratory, or departmental guidelines for research and publication. Half believed that being head associated with the laboratory was sufficient for authorship, and slightly fewer believed that getting funding was enough for authorship.
A report by Tarnow of postdoctoral fellows in physics in the 1990s also shows divergences from ICMJE precepts and points to many other concerns about authorship in the sciences. Tarnow discovered that 74% associated with postdoctoral fellows did not recognize the American Physical Society’s guidelines or thought it had been vague or available to interpretations that are multiple. Half the respondents thought the principles suggested that obtaining funding was sufficient for authorship, even though the other half failed to. The findings also revealed that in 75% associated with postdoc-supervisor relationships authorship criteria had not been discussed; in 61% the postdoc’s criteria are not “clearly agreed upon”; plus in 70% of the relationships the criteria for designating other authors was not “clearly agreed upon.”
Clearly, different laboratories have different practices about who should really be included as an author on a paper. At some institutions, it is common for heads of departments to be listed as authors, as so-called “guest authors” or “gift authors,” although they never have directly contributed towards the research. At other institutions, laboratory heads would routinely include as authors technicians who may have performed many experiments but might not have made a substantial intellectual contribution to a paper, while some will give a technician only an acknowledgment at the end of a paper. Some supervisors that are academic have their graduate students collect data, do research, and write up results, yet not give them credit on a paper, while others can give authorship credit to students. Some foreigners in the United States may feel obligated to place mentors from their home countries on a paper even though they failed to be involved in the investigation.
Alternatives to ICMJE
Another problem with the ICMJE guidelines which has come up is the fact that each author might not be able to take responsibility that is full the totality of a paper. In a day and age of increasing specialization, one person knowing all of the statistical analyses and methodology that is scientific went into getting results could be unlikely. Some journals, such as the British Medical Journal and Lancet, have turned away from the idea of an author and instead think in terms of someone who is willing to take responsibility for the content of the paper as a result. The Journal associated with the American Medical Association also now requires authors to submit a form attesting into the nature of these contribution to a paper.
The British Medical Journal says that listing authorship according to ICMJE guidelines will not clarify who is in charge of overall content and excludes those whose contribution has been the number of data. The journal lists contributors in two ways: it publishes the authors’ names at the beginning of the paper, and lists contributors, some of whom may not be included as authors, at the end, and provides details of who planned, conducted, and reported the work as a result. One or more associated with the contributors are thought “guarantors” of the paper. The guarantor must definitely provide a written statement that she or he accepts full responsibility for the conduct associated with the study, had use of the info, and controlled your decision to create. BMJ says that researchers must determine among themselves the particular nature of every man or woman’s contribution, and encourages discussion that is open all participants.
American Psychological Association excerpt on publications.
browse the excerpt
With an increase of knowing of the issue, ICMJE now has in its guidelines a clause concerning contributorship: “Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy, in addition to a policy on identifying who is responsible for the integrity associated with work as an entire.”
E. Other authorship responsibilities
An author has many other responsibilities (what is listed below has been adapted from Michael Kalichman’s educational material for the University of California, San Diego) besides clarifying the issue of who is an author and who deserves credit for work:
Checklist for Authors from Science’s Next Wave
- Good writing: Authors must write well and explain methods, data analysis and conclusions so a reader can understand them and be able to replicate findings. Charts, tables and graphs must be clear also.
- Accuracy: Although every effort should always be built to not have mistakes in a paper, be they in a footnote or from the research itself, unintentional errors creep in. Authors should be careful.
- Context and citations: the writer has to put research into appropriate context and supply citations when you look at the manuscript that both agree and disagree with the work.
- Publishing negative results: If researchers never publish negative results, it makes a impression that is false biases the literature. If results are not published from a drug trial, for example, that either shows a medication does not work or has side effects, clinicians reviewing the literature might get the wrong idea about the medication’s value that is true. Because of this, other researchers may continue with studies about a potentially bad drug.