49
Medical Journalism & Research Ethics Amir Reza Kachooei, MD Managing Editor of the Archives of Bone and Joint Surgery Journal

Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Medical Journalism &Research Ethics

Amir Reza Kachooei, MDManaging Editor of the Archives of Bone and

Joint Surgery Journal

Page 2: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Case Story Manuscript submitted to a journal with the names A, B,

C, D, E, F.

After submitting the revision to the journal, name D is removed and name G was replaced.

No communication with authors D (removed), E, and F.

After being published, author D realized and argued about why omitted without permission.

Page 3: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Questions? Ethical?

Who is the author by definition?

Allowed to omit without permission?

How should a journal act?

Is it fixable?

Page 4: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

1997

Nonprofit organization to define best practice in the ethics of scholarly publishing

How to handle cases of research and publication misconduct

6000 members

Page 5: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics
Page 6: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

As of 2006, over 629 journals worldwide followed the Uniform

Requirements

A set of guidelines

For standardising the ethics and formatting of manuscripts

Page 7: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new

researchersFrom COPE

Page 8: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Examples A deserving junior researcher was omitted from the author list.

A sponsoring company insisted on the inclusion of an opinion leader who had made virtually no contribution to a study.

The writer of a review article found her name replaced with that of her boss, because she was on maternity leave when the final version was submitted.

Page 9: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

If scientists are dishonest about their relationship to

their work, this undermines confidence in the reporting

of the work itself.

Page 10: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Who is an author?Who is not an author?

Page 11: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)

“Authorship credit should be based only on:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

Final approval of the version to be published; AND

Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Page 12: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

University of Bern regulations

“A person is listed as an author if he or she has personally made an important scientific contribution to the planning, conduct, evaluation or control of the research work.”

Page 13: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Do not justify authorship

1. Acquisition of funding

2. Collection of data

3. General supervision of the research group

Page 14: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Obligation to list authors

All persons fulfilling the criteria for authorship must

be listed as authors of a scientific publication.

Page 15: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Order of authors Four basic approaches

Page 16: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

1. sequence determines credit” (SDC),

First author accorded the greatest weight

Last author the least

Page 17: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

2. “equal contribution” (EC) approach

Alphabetical order

Page 18: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

3. “First-last-author-emphasis” (FLAE)

Importance of the first and the last author

Page 19: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

4. “Percent-contribution-indicated” (PCI) approach

Author’s contribution expressed in percentage terms, using various scoring systems.

Page 20: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Order of authors: ‘a joint decision of the coauthors. Authors should be

prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed’.

No guidance

Be clear to the editor

Page 21: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Harvard Medical School 1999; the ICMJE (2010) recommends that editors “develop and implement a

contributorship policy”. Variety of approaches

Difficult for reader to identify the contributions

Proposed that the concept of authorship should be replaced by detailed descriptions of individual contributions (contributorship).

Page 22: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Authorship vs. Contributorship ICMJE guidelines:

‘authors should provide a description of what each contributed, and editors should publish that information’.

Page 23: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Use the term “co-authors”

Contributions of different authors are of equal importance

Page 24: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Number of authors:

No rules

In the past, databases such as Medline limited the

number of authors

Now, most databases list all authors.

Page 25: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Rather than decide how many authors there should be, it

is probably best to agree who will qualify as an author, and

then simply include all those who do.

Page 26: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

How to reduce the incidence of

authorship problems

Page 27: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

It happens in 2 ways: Putting down names of people who took little or no part

in the research (gift authorship)

Leaving out names of people who did take part (ghost authorship)

Page 28: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Ghost authors:1. Professional writers (often paid)

2. People who made a significant contribution to a

research project (and fulfil the ICMJE criteria) but are

not listed as authors.

Page 29: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

ICMJE guidelines clearly condemn this practice and state that

‘All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship,

and all those who qualify should be listed.’

Page 30: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Gift authors: Senior figures (e.g. heads of department)

Page 31: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

(a) Encourage a culture of ethical authorship

People who are being unethical about authorship are simply following local customs and practice.

Make sure your departmental library has at least one book on publication ethics

Page 32: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

(b) Start discussing authorship when you plan your research

At the start

Face-to-face meeting

As the project evolves

Especially if new people get involved

Keep a written record of your decisions

Page 33: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

(c) Decide authorship before you start each article

Confirm in writing who will be doing what and by when.

Ideally face to face

Inform everyone of any changes with a written note.

Page 34: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

How to handle authorship disputes

when they occur

Page 35: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Disagreements are 2 types: 1. Do not contravene ICMJE guidelines (disputes)

2. Those that do (misconduct).

Page 36: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

(a) Dispute: If the suggestions to include or omit names came from your

supervisor Support your decision with evidence, such as laboratory notebooks,

manuscripts, ICMJE statement, Instructions to Authors etc.

Page 37: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

(b) Misconduct Should you say nothing?

Should you blow the whistle?

Explain the fact that the suggested author list contravenes editors’ recommendations, and could be considered scientific misconduct.

If not accepted, as soon as the meeting is finished, make a note and file it.

Page 38: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

What you can do if authorship issues are not

resolved

Page 39: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

If you don’t want to be included:

Inform the other authors as soon as possible.

If you discover after publication: contact the journal and

ask for a correction.

Page 40: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics
Page 41: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

If your name is wrongly omitted

Discuss this with the other contributors.

You could contact the journal but an editor is unlikely to add

your name without the agreement of the other authors.

If your name is omitted by accident, and the other authors

agree, then the journal may publish a correction.

Page 42: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics
Page 43: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics
Page 44: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Responsibility All authors are considered to be jointly responsible for

the publication as a whole.

The indissoluble link between authorship and responsibility must always be borne in mind and provides the justification for sanctions in the event of misconduct.

Page 45: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Acknowledgements The option – or an obligation –

Should specify the type of contribution made

Page 46: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Future topics Self-Archiving

SHERPA/RoMEO

Retraction

Plagiarism

Peer review

ORCID

Publons

WAME (World association of Medical Editor)

EASE (European Association of Science Editor)

Page 47: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Thank you

Page 48: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Substantial contributions can thus be made by people who contribute little work, but whose experience, knowledge, originality or creativity promotes scientific discovery.

It is not possible to define a threshold, in percentage terms, below which a contribution would not generally count as substantial. Determining the threshold in particular cases is a matter of judgment.

Page 49: Authorship dispute, Medical journalism, and Research ethics

Swiss Academy of Medical Sciencesin 2002

“A managerial position within the research institution does not in itself entitle anyone to appear as an author, any more than the provision of financial and organizational support for a project.”