Survey of “instructions to authors” of Indian medical journals for reporting of ethics and authorship criteria

Jaykaran,; Yadav, Preeti; Chavda, Nilesh; Kantharia, ND

doi:10.20529/ijme.2011.012

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This percentage is much higher than the percentage reported by Salamat and coauthors 12 for Iranian medical journals (15%), slightly higher than the 59% reported by Wager for journals that belong to the World Association of Medical Editors, 8 but slightly lower than the 64.5% reported by Jaykaran and coauthors for Indian medical journals. 11 The study by Schriger and coauthors 10 did not establish the prevalence of authorship policies among a sample of journals but analysed the authorship policies among journals with a policy. While it is comforting to know that most scientific journals have an authorship policy, there is still room for improvement, especially among journals from the physical sciences/engineering or mathematical sciences and lower impact journals, which had a significantly lower percentage of authorship policies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship policies of scientific journals: Table 1

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analysed the authorship policies of a random sample of 600 journals from the Journal Citation Reports database. 62.5% of the journals we sampled had an authorship policy. Having an authorship policy was positively associated with impact factor. Journals from the biomedical sciences and social sciences/humanities were more likely to have an authorship policy than journals from the physical sciences, engineering or mathematical sciences. Among journals with a policy, the most frequent type of policy was guidance on criteria for authorship (99.7%); followed by guidance on acknowledgments (97.3%); requiring that authors make substantial contributions to the research (94.7%); requiring that authors be accountable for the research as a whole (84.8%); guidance on changes in authorship (77.9%); requiring that authors give final approval to the manuscript (77.6%); requiring that authors draft or critically revise the manuscript (71.7%); providing guidance on corporate authorship (58.9%); prohibiting gift, guest or ghost authorship (31.7%); requiring authors to describe their contributions (5.3%); limiting the number of authors for some types of articles (4.0%) and requiring authors to be accountable for their part in the research (1.1%). None of the policies addressed equal contribution statements. Journals that do not have authorship policies should consider adopting or developing ones.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship policies of scientific journals: Table 1

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A growing number of health science journals have adopted the ICMJE recommendations in their policies [24,58]. The ICMJE recommendations help bring clarity, and provide useful reference points for the development and enhancement of authorship practices.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOver the past two decades, the promotion of collaborative partnerships involving researchers from low and middle income countries with those from high income countries has been a major development in global health research. Ideally, these partnerships would lead to more equitable collaboration including the sharing of research responsibilities and rewards. While collaborative partnership initiatives have shown promise and attracted growing interest, there has been little scholarly debate regarding the fair distribution of authorship credit within these partnerships.DiscussionIn this paper, we identify four key authorship issues relevant to global health research and discuss their ethical and practical implications. First, we argue that authorship guidance may not adequately apply to global health research because it requires authors to write or substantially revise the manuscript. Since most journals of international reputation in global health are written in English, this would systematically and unjustly exclude non-English speaking researchers even if they have substantially contributed to the research project. Second, current guidance on authorship order does not address or mitigate unfair practices which can occur in global health research due to power differences between researchers from high and low-middle income countries. It also provides insufficient recognition of “technical tasks” such as local participant recruitment. Third, we consider the potential for real or perceived editorial bias in medical science journals in favour of prominent western researchers, and the risk of promoting misplaced credit and/or prestige authorship. Finally, we explore how diverse cultural practices and expectations regarding authorship may create conflict between researchers from low-middle and high income countries and contribute to unethical authorship practices. To effectively deal with these issues, we suggest: 1) undertaking further empirical and conceptual research regarding authorship in global health research; 2) raising awareness on authorship issues in global health research; and 3) developing specific standards of practice that reflect relevant considerations of authorship in global health research.SummaryThrough review of the bioethics and global health literatures, and examination of guidance documents on ethical authorship, we identified a set of issues regarding authorship in collaborative partnerships between researchers from low-middle income countries and high income countries. We propose several recommendations to address these concerns.

show abstract

“…The adherence to the general and field-specific guidelines on authorship may be instrumental in curbing the conflicts globally and particularly in the emerging science countries, where a large proportion of journals still lack authorship policies and do not adhere to the accepted criteria (14). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Authorship and Contributorship in Scholarly Journals

Gasparyan

2013

J Korean Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survey of “instructions to authors” of Indian medical journals for reporting of ethics and authorship criteria

Cited by 6 publications

References 4 publications

Authorship policies of scientific journals: Table 1

Authorship policies of scientific journals: Table 1

Authorship ethics in global health research partnerships between researchers from low or middle income countries and high income countries

Authorship and Contributorship in Scholarly Journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About