A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship

Abstract

Background: Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor-mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 medical journals. However, the binary ICMJEc have not yet been quantified. Aim: To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims. Methods: The four ICMJEc were separated into the nine authorship components of conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation of data, draft, revision, final approval and accountability. In spring 2021, members of an international association of medical editors rated the importance of each authorship component using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no importance) to 10 (most important). The median component scores were used to calibrate the pairwise comparisons in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP priority weights were multiplied against a four-level perceived effort/ capability grade to calculate an authorship score. Results: Sixty-six decision-making medical editors completed the survey. The components had the median scores/AHP weights: conception 7.5/5.3%; design 8/8.9%; data acquisition 7/3.6%; data analysis 7/3.6%; interpretation of data 8/8.9%; draft 8/8.9%; revision 8/8.9%; final approval 9/20.1%; and accountability 10/31.8%, with Kruskal-Wallis Chi 2 = 65.11, p < 0.001. Conclusion:The editors rated accountability as the most important component of authorship, followed by the final approval of the manuscript; data acquisition had the lowest median importance score for authorship. The scoring rubric (https://tinyurl.com/eyu86y96) transforms the binary tetrad ICMJEc into 9 quantifiable components of authorship, providing a transparent method to objectively assess authorship contributions, determine authorship order and potentially decrease the abuse of authorship. If desired, individual journals can survey their editorial boards and use the AHP method to derive customized weightings for an ICMJEc-based authorship index.

Sustainability of Rural Small-Scale Farmers Using a Thematic Content-Fed Analytic Hierarchy Process

“…The criteria were the challenges which the SSDFs have reported during interview sessions and grouped per theme using the TCA. To prioritize these challenges, we employed the approach by Ing (2021), which aggregates the total scores and finds the average of each criterion and sub-criterion (this is according to the main study objective) [132]. As stipulated by Saaty (1987) a consistency ratio below 10% is considered feasible to proceed with the analysis.…”

“…The AHP synthesis yielded the themes according to their contribution to the overall goal. In completing the pairwise comparison matrix this study adopted the approach by Ing (2021), which finds the difference between each criterion and sub-criteria [132] and converts it to an equivalent form in Saaty's intensity scale of importance [81]. The study AHP ranking revealed that HC had the greatest priority of 0.5713 and was ranked first, followed by UWP with 0.1578, D with 0.0786.…”

A practical index system forevaluating the core competence of specialized nurses in digestive endoscopy

“…This study draws on the theoretical framework of nurses' core competence, and adopts various research methods, including literature research, semi-structured interview, Delphi method and hierarchical analysis method, to construct the core competence evaluation index system [18]. The application of hierarchical analysis helps to determine the weight of core competence indicators and improve the scienti city of research results [19]. The effectiveness of the Delphi method mainly depends on the representativeness, enthusiasm and authority of the consulting experts: In this study, 15 experts were selected, who are from 10 provinces and cities, with a certain regional representation.…”

Guest authorship as research misconduct: definitions and possible solutions

“…Admittedly, defining ‘substantial’ contribution may be difficult, although a contribution scoring system may be helpful 20. That said, ICMJE explicitly rejects solely data-gathering, funding, general supervision and editing19—activities comprising a large proportion of guest authorship.…”