2022
DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2022.2050111
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Building consensus on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research: recommendations from an expert task force of medical publication professionals

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…An additional problem with most authorship guidelines and criteria is the reference to "substantial contributions", leaving a sizeable amount of room for interpretation (Borenstein & Shamoo, 2015;Teixeira Da Silva & Dobránszki, 2016a) in which researchers tend to overestimate the importance of their own contribution (Hosseini & Gordijn, 2020). Reaching agreement can be especially challenging for multicenter studies when large numbers of investigators and contributors are involved, which is why Carfagno et al (2022) have drafted criteria to delineate "substantial" contributions in industrysponsored research in the biomedical sciences. Arguably, it may be recommended to transition from authorship to contributorship (Borenstein & Shamoo, 2015;Holcombe, 2019;Hosseini & Gordijn, 2020;Pruschak & Hopp, 2022), echoing an argument already made in 1997 (Rennie et al, 1997) and clearly formulated by Resnik: "scientists should more clearly define the responsibilities and contributions of members of research teams and should distinguish between different roles, such as author, statistician, technician, grant writer, data collector, and so forth" (Resnik, 1997, p. 237).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An additional problem with most authorship guidelines and criteria is the reference to "substantial contributions", leaving a sizeable amount of room for interpretation (Borenstein & Shamoo, 2015;Teixeira Da Silva & Dobránszki, 2016a) in which researchers tend to overestimate the importance of their own contribution (Hosseini & Gordijn, 2020). Reaching agreement can be especially challenging for multicenter studies when large numbers of investigators and contributors are involved, which is why Carfagno et al (2022) have drafted criteria to delineate "substantial" contributions in industrysponsored research in the biomedical sciences. Arguably, it may be recommended to transition from authorship to contributorship (Borenstein & Shamoo, 2015;Holcombe, 2019;Hosseini & Gordijn, 2020;Pruschak & Hopp, 2022), echoing an argument already made in 1997 (Rennie et al, 1997) and clearly formulated by Resnik: "scientists should more clearly define the responsibilities and contributions of members of research teams and should distinguish between different roles, such as author, statistician, technician, grant writer, data collector, and so forth" (Resnik, 1997, p. 237).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It should be noted that three of the four authorship criteria defined by the ICMJE relate to participating in publication development (study performance and/or data interpretation, participating in publication preparation, and publication approval), while two criteria involve a right to refuse authorship (final approval and agreeing to accept responsibility) [40]. Consistent, objective definitions of substantial contributions to industrysponsored biomedical research that meet the first criterion of the ICMJE criteria for authorship (study performance and/or data interpretation) have been published elsewhere [59]. ISMPP has also released an Authorship Algorithm Tool, which is exclusively available to its members, to help both determine whether the first ICMJE criterion has been met and to weigh the relative contributions of individual authors [60].…”
Section: Principles To Support Inclusivitymentioning
confidence: 99%