Knowledge on Ethical Authorship: A Comparative Study Between Medical And Pharmacy Faculty

Das, Kusal K; Vallabha, Tejaswini; Patil, Sumangala; J, Ray; Deepak, Kishore Kumar

doi:10.5530/jyp.2016.2.15

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gift authorship was prevalent in more than 80% of the medical faculty and 29% of the pharmacy faculty. 13 In another study that used a national survey to assess the medical student experience with authorship, the investigators found that two-thirds of the medical students never received formal training in authorship guidelines previously. 14 Moreover, close to 25% of the respondents indicated that the criteria for authorship were never clarified to them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Awareness of Authorship Practices Among Health Science Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Badreldin¹,

Aloqayli²,

Alqarni³

et al. 2021

AMEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has published clear guidelines on the authorship of scientific papers. It is the research team’s responsibility to review and ensure those guidelines are met. Authorship ethics and practices have been examined among healthcare professionals or among particular health science students such as medical students. However, there is limited evidence to assess the knowledge of authorship roles and practices among health science students. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge of authorship guidelines practices among health science students at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A survey was developed and distributed. It covered several domains, including demographic characteristics, participant’s knowledge and attitude of authorship practices, knowledge and experience with ghost and guest authorships, and knowledge of institutional authorship policies. Moreover, a score was computed to reflect the respondents’ knowledge about authorship practices. Results Among the 321 participants who agreed to take the survey, two-thirds agreed with and supported that multi-authored articles’ credit allocation should be based on the most significant contribution and contributions to the manuscript writing. Almost 47% agreed that team relationships would influence authorship allocation. The majority of the participants were not aware of their institutional research and publication policies. Also, around 50% of participants were not aware of guest or ghost authorships. Finally, the knowledge score about authorship credits, allocation, contribution, order, and guidelines was higher among students who were assigned as corresponding authors and those who were aware of their institutional authorship guidelines and policies. Conclusion In conclusion, our findings suggest that health science students may have limited knowledge about authorship guidelines and unethical behaviors involved in a scientific publication. Universities and research centers should make more efforts to raise the awareness of health science students regarding authorship guidelines while ensuring that they comply with those guidelines.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge and Awareness of Authorship Practices Among Health Science Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Badreldin¹,

Aloqayli²,

Alqarni³

et al. 2021

AMEP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such differences are even visible for publishers within the same subject [5,24]. A majority of the authors of our selected studies referred to the authorship criteria published by ICMJE (see Table 1) [1,5,20,21,22,23,24,28,29]. The ICMJE criteria are accepted worldwide by the journals from medicine and related health sciences disciplines.…”

Section: Authorship Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1, 22,23,24,27,30] Gift authorship Granting authorship as favor to one who does not qualifies the authorship criteria. [1,5,22,23,24,28] Guest/Honorary authorship Granting authorship to senior individuals as courtesy or to add prestige to the paper. [19,22,23,24,25,26,27,31] Hostage authorship Including an undeserving individual as author because of unavoidable pressure.…”

Section: Survey Medical 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1, 23,24,28] majority (53%) of the respondents, ICMJE authorship guidelines were not respected in at least one of their articles. However, a vast majority (80%) of the respondents reported their awareness of authorship guidelines.…”

Section: Survey Medical 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The primary cause of being overinclusive is the difficulties in determining the extent of the contribution. In a survey with the medical and pharmacy faculties of India [28], it is reported that only 22% of medical and 39% of pharmacy faculty members were aware of COPE (Committee On Publication Ethics) or ICMJE guidelines on authorship. In a survey of articles submitted with a medical journal (2013 to 2015), Šupak-Smolčić et al [29] analyzed the self-reported contribution statements to assess the conformance with ICMJE criteria.…”

Section: Survey Medical 2014mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Authorship ethics: an overview of research on the state of practice

Minhas¹

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Authorship ethics is a central topic of discussion in research ethics fora. There are various guidelines for authorship (i.e., naming and order). It is not easy to decide the authorship in the presence of varying authorship guidelines. This paper gives an overview of research on authorship practices and issues. It presents a review of 16 empirical research papers published between 2014 -2020. The objective is to learn how various research disciplines handle authorship. What are the authorship practices in various research disciplines, and what are the issues associated with these practices?The ethics of authorship is well-researched in the health sciences, but it has got less attention from social scientists [1]. In higher education and research institutions, authorship credit is considered academic currency [2,3]. Several organizations, especially the publishers of scientific articles, provide guidelines on authorship credit. For instance, in health sciences and its related disciplines, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) 1 has published the authorship criteria (see Table 1) as a part of Vancouver protocol. Vancouver protocol includes the guidelines and recommendations for conducting, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. The influence of ICMJE criteria is expanding to other disciplines as well [4]. The authorship refers to two essential aspects that the research team needs to decide about, 1) Who should be included as an author? (Authorship Naming), 2) Who would be listed as the first author, and what would be the subsequent positions of co-authors? (Authorship order). Authorship guidelines suggest that a substantial contributor would be listed as an author. However, in which order, the authors' names should be displayed, guidelines are silent in this regard [5,6]. Other contributors who do not meet authorship criteria, their names should have to be listed in the acknowledgment section [4].The guidelines on who should be an author differ from one organization to another, and the difference could be within the same research discipline. These differences could be confusing for the authors and ultimately could lead to poor authorship decisions [7]. The existing authorship criteria provide a road-map about authorship naming, but it is hard to find such guidelines regarding authorship order [8]. Although almost every scientific article publisher provides authorship criteria, researchers reported disagreements and unethical practices regarding authorship, for instance, giving authorship to undeserving persons or ignoring substantial contributors [9]. There is a need to increase awareness about the ethics of authorship and open up a dialog among the institutions and researchers [10].This study aims at investigating the practices and issues related to the ethics of authorship. A review of empirical articles/papers published between 2014 to 2020 has been conducted. The selection of the primary studies was made based on the criteria that the presented study ...

show abstract

Misuse of co-authorship in Medical PhD Theses in Scandinavia: A Questionnaire Survey

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Several studies suggest that deviations from proper authorship practices are commonplace in medicine. The aim of this study was to explore experiences of and attitudes towards the handling of authorship in PhD theses at medical faculties in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Methods Those who defended their PhD thesis at a medical faculty in Scandinavia during the second half of 2020 were offered, by e-mail, to participate in an online survey. Survey questions dealt with experiences of violations of the first three of the ICMJE authorship criteria and misuse of authorship order in the thesis articles, as well as respondents’ attitudes to these matters. Both questions with fixed response alternatives and questions with free-text responses were used. Quantitative data were analysed statistically using the Table functions in SPSS 25 and Chi-2 tests. Free-text responses were analysed qualitatively using manifest content analysis. Results 287 valid questionnaires were returned (response rate: 34.1%). Almost half (46.0%) of the respondents reported that the ICMJE authorship criteria were not fully respected in at least one of the papers in their thesis, while a vast majority (96.7%) found it important that authorship is handled according to the ICMJE authorship criteria. 24.4% reported inadequate handling of authorship order in at least one paper. The qualitative results provide a wide spectrum of examples of how the ICMJE authorship criteria are circumvented. Conclusion Despite increasing educational efforts to reduce deviations from good research practice at Scandinavian universities, the handling of authorship in medical papers remains problematic.

show abstract

Knowledge on Ethical Authorship: A Comparative Study Between Medical And Pharmacy Faculty

Cited by 8 publications

References 5 publications

Knowledge and Awareness of Authorship Practices Among Health Science Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Knowledge and Awareness of Authorship Practices Among Health Science Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Authorship ethics: an overview of research on the state of practice

Misuse of co-authorship in Medical PhD Theses in Scandinavia: A Questionnaire Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About