While these results should be extrapolated cautiously, our medical
school is not atypical and our findings are in accord with quantitative
work in other centres and with much comment and
analysis.(4-5)-10 Our sample included researchers
with
widely varying seniority and experience of authorship and reflected the
range of disciplines in a modern medical school. The high response rate
and the frank responses testify that the respondents welcomed debate on
authorship. The semistructured format of the interviews allowed for
discussion of the responses.
While the researchers supported the idea of criteria for
authorship, many did not adhere to those of the International Committee
of Medical Journal Editors, partly because these did not fit with their
values. Most respondents disagreed that all three of the committee's
criteria should be met since this excluded researchers with important
but limited roles. Gift authorship was perceived as an unacceptable and
unethical practice that was common and difficult to prohibit. It was
seen to be encouraged by academic reward systems.
There has long been concern about multiple and unearned authorship.
In
1957 Hewitt noted increasing multiple authorship and argued that
bestowing unearned
authorship was no favour. The second of his 10 commandments for writing
is, "Thou shalt not allow thy name to appear as a co-author unless
thou hast some authoritative knowledge of the subject concerned, hast
participated in the underlying investigation, and hast laboured on the
report to the extent of weighing every word and quantity
therein."(11) This principle is echoed by
other writers in
the phrases "significant contribution," "intellectual
input,"
and "public responsibility." In 1982 Burman observed no
correlation
between the number of authors and citation and called for criteria for
authorship.(12) He recommended that order be
based on
contribution, with the head of the laboratory as the last author. The
practice of heads of laboratories and departments being coauthors of
all papers from their units is now unacceptable.
The criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors,
therefore, were developed on the basis of debated principles, in
response to increasing concerns about gift authorship and fraud in
science. They have been widely published, but in our study many
researchers were unaware of the criteria, tended to misunderstand them,
and perceived them as open to misinterpretation. This is partially
understandable because, while the criteria are unequivocal, the
discussions interpreting them are not. For example, Huth develops the
argument for the criteria by emphasising that public responsibility for
the content, including intellectual content, is the key to
authorship.(13) While technical work, referral of
patients,
and collection of data alone do not justify authorship, development of
the hypothesis, design of the study, and analysis of results may. The
detailed discussion contradicts the criteria also given in his text
(pages 229 and 44), showing that the criteria alone do not cover
adequately a complex matter. Huth's discussion is closer to the views
of researchers than the criteria.
Criteria for authorship need to accord more with researchers' values,
particularly giving more weight to important practical contributions,
which nearly all guidelines consider unworthy of authorship.
Researchers views were similar to those of Staheli, who noted that
substantial contribution is the key, that excluding key contributors is
unethical, and that coauthors include those whose ideas started the
study and those who gathered data.(14)
Problems not addressed by the current guidelines of the International
Committee of Medical Journal Editors include ordering of authors and
failure to gain authorship when deserved. Most writers on authorship
agree that the first author is the one most closely associated with the
work. The special status of the last author is recognised by several
writers, but the general view is that the order of authors should
reflect the rank order of contribution. The Council of Biology Editors
recommends each journal specify the criteria for order of authorship.
| Key Messages |
| We assessed the views of 66 medical researchers on criteria
for authorship and gift authorship
There was lack of awareness of the criteria for authorship
stipulated by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
While the concept of criteria for authorship was supported,
current criteria were not adhered to, partly because they did not
accord with researchers' values
Gift authorship was perceived as a common problem encouraged
by the systems for evaluating research and developing careers
Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and editors
and should give weight to important practical contributions to
research |
Our data should help researchers and editors develop a shared
understanding. The strategy for communicating and implementing the
criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has
largely failed. New initiatives should engage researchers and meet
their legitimate needs. Future guidelines should be developed
collaboratively and not be imposed on researchers by
editors.
We thank the respondents for being so frank; Professor
George
Alberti, Dean of Medicine, for support; Dr Richard Smith for calling
for the study; Drs Nigel Unwin, Neville Goodman, and other colleagues
in the authorship subgroup of LOCKNET for ideas; an anonymous referee
whose comments reshaped the paper; and Pat Barkes and Suzanne Young for
secretarial support. The order of the authors reflects peer group views
on overall academic and practical contribution to this paper and is
therefore rank order. The questionnaire is available from JR.
Conflict of interest: RB was the convenor of the authorship
subgroup of LOCKNET.
Funding: Resources were provided by the three departments of
the School of Health Sciences of the Medical School.
(Accepted 17 February 1997)
Department of Epidemiology and
Public Health,
School of Health Sciences,
University of Newcastle,
Newcastle Upon Tyne NE2 4HH
Raj Bhopal,
professor of epidemiology and public
health
Judith Rankin, senior research
associate
Centre for Health Services Research,
School
of Health Sciences,
University of Newcastle
Elaine McColl,
senior research associate
Lois Thomas,
research
associate
Department of Primary Health Care,
School of Health Sciences,
University of Newcastle
Eileen Kaner,
research associate
Rosie Stacy,
lecturer in medical sociology
Pauline
Pearson, lecturer in primary care
nursing
Brian Vernon, lecturer in the
ethics of health care
Departments of Medicine and
Epidemiology,
School of Health Sciences,
University of
Newcastle
Helen Rodgers, senior lecturer in
stroke medicine
Correspondence to: Judith
Rankin.
References
1 Kapoor V K. Polyauthoritis giftosa.
Lancet
1994;346:1039.
2 Smith J. Gift authorship: a poisoned chalice?
BMJ 1994;309:1456-7.
3 International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors. Guidelines
on authorship. BMJ 1985;291:721.
4 Shapiro D W, Wenger W S, Shapiro M F. The
contributions of
authors to multiauthored biomedical research papers. JAMA
1994;271:438-42.
5 Goodman N. Survey of fulfilment of criteria
for authorship in
published medical research. BMJ 1994;309:1482.
6 Smith R. Promoting research into peer review:
an invitation to
join in. BMJ 1994;309:143-4.
7 Horton R, Smith R. Time to redefine
authorship: a conference
to do so. BMJ 1996;312:723.
8 Norusis M J. SPSS for Windows. Base system
user's guide
- release 6.0. Chicago: SPSS, 1993.
9 Digiusto E. Equity in authorship: a strategy
for assigning
credit when publishing. Soc Sci Med 1993;38:55-8.
10 Eastwood D, Derish P, Leash E, Ordway S.
Ethical issues in
biomedical research: perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research
fellows responding to a survey. Science Engineering
Ethics 1996;2:89-114.
11 Hewitt R M. The physician-writer's book
... tricks of
the trade of medical writing. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Saunders,
1957.
12 Burman K D. Hanging from the masthead. Ann
Intern
Med 1982;97:602-5.
13 Huth E J. How to write and publish papers
in the medical
sciences. 2nd ed. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1990.
14 Staheli L T. Speaking and writing for the
physician. 1st ed. New York: Raven, 1986.
Feedback
Please
submit your views on authorship in the box below. You will receive a thank you message when your comment has been transmitted.
Current contents |
Classified ads |
Find | BMA | Local editions | Extras
Advice to authors |
Reprints |
Subscriptions |
Feedback | Home
