Authorship: attitudes and practice among Norwegian researchers

BMC Medical Ethics

Peter Kierulf²  Frode Fagerbakk¹  Magne Nylenna¹ 

[1]Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, St. Olavs plass, P.O.Box 7004, N-0130 Oslo, Norway

[2]Oslo University Hospital, St. Olavs plass, P.O.Box 7004, N-0130 Oslo, Norway

关键词: Dishonesty;    Misconduct;    Authorship;    Publishing;    Research;   

Others  :  1090150
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6939-15-53

 received in 2013-12-06, accepted in 2014-06-23,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Attitudes to, and practices of, scientific authorship vary. We have studied this variation among researchers in a university hospital and medical school in Norway.

Methods

We invited all faculty, researchers and PhD students at Oslo University Hospital and the Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo (approximately 2700) by e-mail to answer a web-based questionnaire in January 2013. We asked the researchers to report their authorship experiences and to score their agreement with, and ability to practice according to, 13 statements on authorship qualifications and criteria on a five-point Likert scale (1 = completely agree, 5 = completely disagree). The statements were taken from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and other recommendations on authorship.

Results

654 questionnaires were returned (response rate 24%); 25% of the respondents had published less than five scientific articles, 43% five to 49, and 32% more than 50 articles. 97% reported knowledge of defined authorship criteria, and 68% regarded breaches of these as scientific misconduct. 36% had experienced pressure to include undeserved authors in their papers, more in basic science (46%) than in community medicine (25%). 29% reported that they had been denied authorship they believed they deserved. Researchers with less than six years of research experience found authorship decisions more difficult than more experienced researchers (48% vs 30%).

The respondents’ agreement with the statements on authorship was higher than their self-reported ability to follow them for all statements. Average scores for agreement and practice for all statements combined were 1.4 vs 2.3. The discrepancy between attitude and practice declined with publishing experience. For the core ICMJE authorship requirements the average difference between attitude and practice was 1.2 among those who had published less than 5 articles and 0.7 among those who had published 50 articles or more (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Almost all the responding researchers had knowledge of formal authorship requirements. Most of them agreed with the criteria, but found it harder to put them into practice. More experienced researchers found decisions on authorship and about the order of authors easier than less experienced researchers.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Nylenna et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A: A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One 2011, 6(9):e23477. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0023477
• [2]Wager E: Recognition, reward and responsibility: why the authorship of scientific papers matter. Maturitas 2009, 62:109-12. doi:10.1016/j.maturitas.2008.12.001
• [3]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Defining the role of authors and contributors. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html webcite
• [4]Kalichman MW: Overview: underserved areas of education in the responsible conduct of research: authorship. Sci Eng Ethics 2011, 17:335-9. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9281-3
• [5]Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD: Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ 2011, 343:d6128.
• [6]Nylenna M, Andersen D, Dahlquist G, Sarvas M, Aakvaag A: Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries. Lancet 1999, 354:57-61.
• [7]Hofmann B, Myhr AI, Holm S: Scientific dishonesty – a nationwide survey of doctoral students in Norway. BMC Med Ethics 2013, 14:3. doi:10.1186/1472-6939-14-3 BioMed Central Full Text
• [8]University of Oslo: Nettskjema [Web-scheme]. http://www.uio.no/english/services/it/adm-services/nettskjema/ webcite
• [9]Shih T-H, Fan X: Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: a Meta-Analysis.Field. Methods 2008, 20:249.
• [10]Keeter S, Miller C, Kohut A, Groves RM, Presser S: Consequences of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opin Q 2000, 64:125-148. doi:10.1086/317759
• [11]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: The New ICMJE Recommendations. 2013. http://www.icmje.org/news-and-editorials/new_rec_aug2013.html webcite
• [12]Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, Pearson P, Vernon B, Rodgers H: The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty. BMJ 1997, 314:1009.
• [13]Dhaliwal U1, Singh N, Bhatia A: Awareness of authorship criteria and conflict: survey in a medical institution in India. MedGenMed 2006, 12:8-52.
• [14]Reinisch JF, Li WY, Yu DC, Walker JW: Authorship conflicts: a study of awareness of authorship criteria among academic plastic surgeons. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013, 132:303e-310e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182958b5a
• [15]Karani R, Ognibene FP, Fallar R, Gliatto P: Medical students’ experiences with authorship in biomedical research: a national survey. Acad Med 2013, 88:364-8. doi:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31827fc6ae
• [16]Campbell EG, Regan S, Gruen RL, Ferris TG, Rao SR, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D: Professionalism in medicine: results of a national survey of physicians. Ann Intern Med 2007, 147:795-802.
• [17]Pignatelli B, Maisonneuve H, Chapuis F: Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings. J Med Ethics 2005, 31:578-81.
• [18]Authors’ contributions http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcmedethics/authors/instructions/researcharticle#formatting-contributions webcite
• [19]Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L: When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA 1997, 278:579-85.
• [20]Kovacs J: Honorary authorship epidemic in scholarly publications? How the current use of citation-based evaluative metrics make (pseudo) honorary authors from honest contributors of every multi-author article. J Med Ethics 2013, 39:509-12. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100568
• [21]Smith E, Williams-Jones B: Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Sci Eng Ethics 2012, 18:199-212. doi:10.1007/s11948-011-9263-5
• [22]Macrina FL: Teaching authorship and publication practices in the biomedical and life sciences. Sci Eng Ethics 2011, 17:341-54.
• [23]Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Kitas GD: Authorship problems in scholarly journals: considerations for authors, peer reviewers and editors. Rheumatol Int 2013, 33:277-84.
• [24]Hren D, Sambunjak D, Marušić M, Marušić A: Medical students’ decisions about authorship in disputable situations: intervention study. Sci Eng Ethics 2013, 19:641-51. doi:10.1007/s11948-012-9358-7