The document discusses medical journalism and research ethics, specifically around authorship issues. It provides examples of authorship disputes that have occurred, such as authors being omitted or added without permission. Guidelines are discussed for determining authorship, including the need for substantial contributions to the work. Methods for handling disputes are outlined, such as discussing authorship early and keeping records. Blowing the whistle is suggested if misconduct occurs rather than names being omitted or added in violation of guidelines.

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

2. 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.

3. Questions?
 Ethical?
 Who is the author by definition?
 Allowed to omit without permission?
 How should a journal act?
 Is it fixable?

4.  1997
 Nonprofit organization to define best practice in the ethics of
scholarly publishing
 How to handle cases of research and publication misconduct
 6000 members

6.  As of 2006, over 629 journals worldwide followed the Uniform
Requirements
 A set of guidelines
 For standardising the ethics and formatting of manuscripts

7. How to handle
authorship disputes:
a guide for new
researchers
From COPE

8. 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.

9.  If scientists are dishonest about their relationship to
their work, this undermines confidence in the reporting
of the work itself.

10. Who is an author?
Who is not an author?

11. 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.

12. 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.”

13. Do not justify authorship
1. Acquisition of funding
2. Collection of data
3. General supervision of the research group

14. Obligation to list authors
 All persons fulfilling the criteria for authorship must
be listed as authors of a scientific publication.

15. Order of authors
Four basic approaches

16. 1. sequence determines
credit” (SDC),
 First author accorded the greatest weight
 Last author the least

17. 2. “equal contribution”
(EC) approach
 Alphabetical order

18. 3. “First-last-author-
emphasis” (FLAE)
 Importance of the first and the last author

19. 4. “Percent-contribution-
indicated” (PCI) approach
 Author’s contribution expressed in percentage terms, using various
scoring systems.

20. 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

21. 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).

22. Authorship vs.
Contributorship ICMJE guidelines:
 ‘authors should provide a description of what each contributed,
and editors should publish that information’.

23. Use the term “co-authors”
 Contributions of different authors are of equal
importance

24. Number of authors:
 No rules
 In the past, databases such as Medline limited the
number of authors
 Now, most databases list all authors.

25. as an author, and then
simply include all
those who do.

26. How to reduce the
incidence of
authorship problems

27. 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)

28. 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.

29. authorship, and all
those who qualify
should be listed.’

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

31. (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

32. (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

33. (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.

34. How to handle
authorship disputes
when they occur

35. Disagreements are 2 types:
1. Do not contravene ICMJE guidelines (disputes)
2. Those that do (misconduct).

36. (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.

37. (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.

38. What you can do
if authorship
issues are not
resolved

39. 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.

41. 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.

44. 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.

45. Acknowledgements
 The option – or an obligation –
 Should specify the type of contribution made

46. Future topics
 Self-Archiving
 SHERPA/RoMEO
 Retraction
 Plagiarism
 Peer review
 ORCID
 Publons
 WAME (World association of Medical Editor)
 EASE (European Association of Science Editor)

47. Thank you

48.  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.

49. Swiss Academy of Medical
Sciences
in 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.”