autoría revistas pequeñas

Science and Engineering Ethics (2004) 10, 493-502

Authorship in a Small Medical Journal: AStudy of Contributorship Statements byCorresponding AuthorsMatko Marusic^ Jadranka Bozikov^ Vedran Katavic^ DarkoHren^ Marko Kljakovic-Gaspic^ Ana Marusic

Croatian Medical Journal, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Zagreb, Croatia

Keywords: authorship, ethics, publications

ABSTRACT: The authorship criteria of the International Committee of MedicalJournal Editors (ICMJE) are widely accepted in biomedical journals, but many studiesin large and prestigious journals show that a considerable proportion of authors donot fulfill these criteria. We investigated authorship contributions in a small medicaljournal outside the scientific mainstream, to see if poor adherence to authorshipcriteria is common in biomedical journals. We analyzed statements on researchcontribution, as checked by the corresponding author, for individual authors of 114research articles, representing 475 authors, submitted to the Croatian MedicalJournal(CMJ) from 1999 to 2000. Only 40% of authors fulfilled the ICMJE authorshipcriteria. The authors listed first on the by-line were more likely to fulfill the authorshipcriteria than all other authors on the by-line. The percentage of authors fulfilling theICMJE criteria of authorship decreased with the increase in the number of authorslisted on the by-line. These results indicate that poor adherence to ICMJE authorshipcriteria is poor across biomedical journals, regardless of the size of the scientificcommunity. Authorship and contributorship in biomedical journals, as well as editorialethical responsibilities towards authorship criteria need critical redefinition andeducation of both editors and authors.

Introduction

The guidelines/criteria for reporting investigator contributions have been established bythe Intemational Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) first in 1979, with

Address for correspondence: Vedran Katavic, Zagreb University School of Medicine, Departmentof Anatomy, Salata 11, HR-10000 Zagreb, Croatia, [email protected] received, 3 September 2003: revised, 26 March 2004: accepted, 16 April 2004,1353-3452 2004 Opragen Publications, POB 54, Guildford GUI 2YF, UK, http://www,opragen,co,uk

Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 10, Issue 3, 2004 493

M. Maruic, J, Bozikov, V. Katavic, D. Hren, M. Kljakovic-Gapic, A. Marusic

several modifications and regular updates roughly every 4 years.'"* There were manyreasons for drawing up a set of such criteria, including an increase in the number ofauthors listed on biomedical papers, and practices of gift or guest authorship.^'''' Thesestandards have been adopted by more than 500 journals worldwide. The ICMJE criteriafor authorship are:*

Authorship credit should be based only on 1) substantial contributions toconception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation ofdata; 2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectualcontent; and 3) fmal approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2,and 3 must all be met. Acquisition of funding, the collection of data, or generalsupervision of the research group, by themselves, do not justify authorship.

Authors should provide a description of what each contributed, and editorsshould publish that information. All others who contributed to the work whoare not authors should be named in the Acknowledgments, and what they didshould be described.

The ICMJE criteria are accepted by many editors of scientific journals, but thediscussion on authorship still continues.'^ ''^ "^^ At the same time, manyauthors/contributors are either not familiar with these criteria or simply do not acceptthem,^ "*'^ ^ making the actual publication practices of authors in biomedical journalssomewhat different from those expected by the standards of the ICMJE.

Several studies have shown that a substantial fraction of authors of articles inbiomedical journals did not satisfy the authorship criteria of the ICMJE.^ "^ Thesestudies were performed in large and prestigious journals and it is not clear if the resultscould be generalized across the majority of biomedical journals. We therefore analyzedthe authors' contributions described by the corresponding author in the CroatianMedical Journal (CMJ), a small general medical journal outside the scientificmainstream.^"

Methods

CMJ is an intemational peer reviewed journal established in 1992, and published inEnglish.^' Since 1998 it is fully indexed in Index Medicus/MEDLINE, and since 1999in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine. It is also indexed in Biosis, Excerpta Medica,and ExtraMed. CMJ's rejection rate is approximately 60%, and the impact factor for2002 was 0.71.

Authorship Contributions

We analyzed statements on the contribution of individual authors of research articlessubmitted to the CMJ in 1999 and 2000. The sample consisted of manuscripts sent outfor peer review. The data were collected on 114 articles written by 475 authors.

494 Science and Engineering Ethics, Volume 10, Issue 3, 2004

Authorship in a Small Medical Journal: A Study of Contributorship Statements

CMJ subscribes to the ICMJE authorship criteria and routinely asks correspondingauthors of all papers which are sent for extramural review to specify the contributionsof each co-author in terms of:

A) (a) Conception and design of the work that led to the paper, or (b) analysis andinterpretation of data;

B) (c) Drafting of the article or (d) critical revision of the manuscript for importantintellectual content; and

C) (e) Final approval of the article.The authorship statement also provides the ICMJE definition of authorship, where

it is defmed as fulfillment of A AND B AND C criteria. In this study we alsoconsidered lenient authorship criteria: A AND B, where the fulfillment of criterion Cwas awarded to all authors.^'

Non-Authorship Contributions

To assess the roles of all co-authors and their contributions not related to authorship, aswell as to assess their understanding of the criteria of authorship the correspondingauthors could choose the contributions from the list that included the items (a) to (e), aswell as contributions not related to authorship: (f) provision of study materials orpatients; (g) collection, assembly and possession of raw data; (h) statistical expertise;(i) obtaining funding; (j) administrative/technical/logistical support, and (k) guarantorof integrity of the entire study.

Order on the By-line

Interpreting the by-line, without specific descriptions of contributions, should generallybe avoided because there is no clear rule that the authors follow.^ ''^ ''^ ^" '^' Theauthors/contributors were ranked according to their position on the by-line as being thefirst, second, or last, to address the issue that a certain position on the by-linecorresponds to a specific job.'^' These stratifications were mutually exclusive (e.g.,authors were considered as last on the by-line when there were three authors or moreon the by-line). The interpretation of the placement on the by-line was limited only toauthors appearing last, which we considered as persons in charge of the entire study;for lack of a better term we called them team leaders. '^ ^^' ^ *

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS 10.0.1 software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).


M. MaruSic, J. Bozikov, V. Katavic, D. Hren, M. Kljakovic-GaSpic, A. Marusid

Results

A total of 114 research articles by 475 authors submitted to the CMJ in the 1999-2000period were analyzed for their authors' contributions. The majority of manuscripts had2 to 6 authors (82%), whereas 8% of the manuscripts had a single author, and 10% had7 to 10 authors (Table 1). The mean number SD of authors per article was 4.22.0;i.e., the majority of manuscripts, with 2 to 6 authors, also represented the majority ofauthors (78%, Table 1).

Out of 475 authors, only 184 (38.7%) fulfilled full ICMJE criteria. If criterion Cwas awarded to all authors,^' the lenient criteria were satisfied by 194 (40.8%) of theauthors (Table 2). We present only the data concerning the lenient criteria, for the sakeof comparison with studies of other journals.^'

For a more detailed view of authorship compliance with the lenient ICMJEauthorship criteria we divided those criteria into 2 parts; one comprising conceptionand design of a study as well as the analysis and interpretation of data, and the othercomprising drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. The fulfillment of bothrequirements depended on the position of the author on the by-line, with authors listedfirst or second meeting these requirements more often than authors listed last on theby-line (Table 2).

Table 1. Number of manuscripts and authors according to the number of authors on the by-line of manuscripts sent out for peer review in Croatian MedicalJoumal 1999-2000

Authors onby-line12345678910Total

No. ofmanuscripts9 (7.9)20(17.5)17(14.9)17(14,9)21 (18.4)18(15.8)7(6.1)1 (0,9)3 (2.6)1 (0.9)114(100.0)

No, ofauthors9(1.9)40 (8.4)51 (10.7)68(14.3)105(22.1)108 (22.7)49 (10.3)8(1,7)27 (5.7)10(2.1)475 (100,0)

According to the number of authors on the by-line, only the authors listed as singleauthors of a manuscript fulfilled the authorship criteria (Table 3). The percentage ofauthors fiilfilling the authorship criteria decreased with the increase in the number ofauthors listed on the by-line, with the only exception of the papers with 9 authors onthe by-line. None of the authors of the single manuscript with 10 authors on the by-linefulfilled the lenient ICMJE criteria (Table 3).



Table 2. Fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria* of authors of manuscripts sent out forpeer review in Croatian Medical Journal from 1999-2000

ICMJE criteria

Conception and design ORanalysis/interpretation ofdataDrafting of the article ORcritical revision of themanuscriptFulfillment of bothconditions

All authors onthe by-line (%)(n=475)313(65.9)

259 (54.5)

194(40.8)

Order on by-line (%)First

(n=114)114(100.0)

77 (67.5)

77 (67.5)

Second(n=105)

79 (75.2)

66 (62.9)

52 (49.5)

Last(n=85)

36 (42.4)

43 (50.6)

22 (25.9)

* Conception and design or analysis/interpretation of data AND drafting of the article or criticalrevision of the manuscript (final approval of the article was awarded to all authors, according toYank and Rennie, ref 29)

Table 3. Fulfillment of lenient ICMJE authorship criteria* in all manuscripts sent out forpeer review in Croatian Medical Journal according to the number of authors on the by-line1999-2000

No. ofauthors onby-line12345678910

Authors fulfilling lenientICMJE authorship criteria(% of authors for that rank)9 (100.0)24 (60.0)23 (45.1)30(44.1)42 (40.0)40 (37.0)14 (28.6)1 (12.5)11 (40.7)0 (0.0)

* Conception and design or analysis/interpretation of data AND drafting of the article or criticalrevision of the manuscript (according to Yank and Rennie, ref 29)

To further investigate the contributions of authors on the by-line, we broke theICMJE criteria down to single concepts, dividing them into criteria determiningauthorship, and non-authorship contributions. The authors listed first on the by-linefulfilled most of the criteria more often than others on the by-line. Authors listed laston the by-line contributed to the manuscripts the least by the criteria determining


M. Marusic, J. Bozikov, V. Katavic, D. Hren, M. Kljakovic-Gapic, A. Manisic

authorship, except by the critical revision of the article, where they were comparable\yith the authors listed first and second (Table 4). Since those listed last on the by-linewere expected to be team leaders,^^'^^ it is surprising that they failed to fulfill thelargest percentage of non-authorship criteria (e.g., 7% and 14% for obtaining fundingand guarantor for the integrity of the whole study, respectively). At the same time, 21%and 48% of the first authors claimed responsibility for the obtaining of funding and theintegrity of the study, respectively. Also, first authors were more than twice as likely tohave been involved in the conception and design of a study, analysis and interpretationof data, as well as in the drafting of the article than the authors placed last on the by-line. Critical revision of the manuscript was the only criterion of authorship and theadministrative/technical/logistical support was the only non-authorship criterion whereall investigated authors' contributions were comparable, irrespective of their placementon the by-line.

Table 4. Contributions of authors of manuscripts sent out for peer review in CroatianMedicalJournal according to the ICMJE criteria in papers reviewed from 1999-2000

All authors(n=475)

212 (44.6)243(51.2)159(33.5)182 (38.3)

184(38.7)

199(41.9)

199(41.9)

98 (20.6)58 (12.2)98 (20.6)

86(18.1)

Order on by-line (%)First

(n=114)

111 (97.4)84 (73.7)67 (58.8)48 (42.1)

63 (55.3)

60 (52.6)

62 (54.4)

37 (32.5)24(21.1)25(21.9)

55 (48.3)

Second(n=105)

45 (42.9)62 (59.1)38 (36.2)46 (43.8)

37 (35.2)

38 (36.2)

39(37.1)

20(19.1)11 (10.5)21 (20.0)

15 (14.3)

Last(n=85)

21 (24.7)28 (32.9)18(21.2)35(41.2)

32 (37.6)

22 (25.9)

29(34.1)

17 (20.0)6(7.1)19 (22.4)

12(14.1)

ICMJE criteria:

For authorship:conception and designanalysis/interpretation of datadrafting of the articlecritical revision of themanuscriptfinal approval of the articleNon-authorship contributions:provision of study materials orpatientscollection, assembly andpossession of raw datastatistical expertiseobtaining fundingadministrative/technical/logistical supportguarantor of integrity

Discussion

The results of our study showed that the adherence to the ICMJE authorship criteriawas poor in a small medical journal outside of the mainstream science. Such results arecomparable to a poor adherence to the ICMJE authorship criteria in large andprestigious biomedical journals^'"" suggesting that this problem is common acrossbiomedical journals. It seems that corresponding authors either do not read or do not



care about the authorship definitions provided on the contributorship form, but ratherdistribute offered categories of contributions among the authors on the by-line guidedby their own views on authorship/contributorship.

Our data showed that approximately 60% of our authors failed to fulfill the lenientICMJE authorship criteria. Authors listed first on the by-line fulfilled more ICMJEauthorship and non-authorship criteria than all other authors on the by-line. Only 20%of all last authors, usually considered as team leaders^ '^ '^^ * fulfilled the authorshiprequirements. It is interesting that only 58 authors (12%) were responsible forobtaining funding, and only 86 authors (18%) were guarantors of the integrity of thestudy, both criteria usually the responsibility of at least one author per manuscript,most often the team leader. This indicates that our authors did not consider these itemsimportant, which is not surprising in a poorly defined and controlled system of fundingand performing research in the scientific periphery.^" In small scientific communities,especially in post-communist countries, small research grants and (almost) permanentacademic positions do not stimulate competition and responsible authorship.

It would be interesting to compare the contributions declared by the correspondingauthors (standard practice in our journal up to 2000) to those declared by each authoron the by-line (practice in most leading journals, e.g.. Journal of the American MedicalAssociation). A similar study has already been performed in a non-English journal -Dutch Journal of Medicine, also a member of the ICMJE.^ * Their results indicated that,although largely unfamiliar with the ICMJE authorship criteria, almost two thirds ofthe authors flilfilled those criteria. However, their scoring of both their owninvolvement and the involvement of other authors on the paper showed a discrepancyfor 20% of the authors.

We believe that our results on authorship practices, as well as findings from other,larger joumals,^ *"^ '^" showing poor adherence to the authorship/contributorshipcriteria, should be a warning signal for editors from all journals, be they large or small,influential or outside the scientific mainstream, and especially for the ICMJE. Suchauthorship practices call for changing either the authors or the criteria, leaving,obviously, only the criteria for re-assessment. But then again, re-assessment alonewould not be enough. The ICMJE criteria have been assessed and reassessed severaltimes,''^ with little impact on authorship practices. The ICMJE can change the rulesand the criteria, but if they are not known or are even ignored by the ones expected toadhere to them (i.e. the authors), fair award of authorship credit will again be missed.The journal editors are currently in a position where they have the responsibility, butcannot implement the rules they have set themselves. Are they to police themanuscripts, investigating and analyzing every single author's contributions? And oncethey find someone who does not qualify to be listed on the by-line are they to deletesuch author(s) from the by-line? The ICMJE declares that "Authors should provide adescription of what each contributed, and editors should publish that information."* Towhat end? So that the readers would know that some of the authors are gift or guest


M. Marusic, J. Bozikov, V. Katavic, D. Hren, M. Kljakovic-Gaspic, A. Marusic

authors? Or that the majority of authors do not follow the ICMJE rules, and that editorsare powerless/reluctant to change the by-line?

For these reasons, we at the CMJ have chosen to ask the authors to describe theircontributions, but not to publish this information until we can exercise our editorialresponsibilities in full. The ethics of publication lies in the inherent trust between theeditor and the authors,^ "* but instances of gift and guest authorship, however rare, arestill very much a harsh reality of biomedical publishing. We believe that the bestapproach to this problem is education of both authors and editors about the importanceof authorship and criteria for awarding authorship credit to researchers. In our smallscientific community, we have approached this problem at several levels: including thistopic in a mandatory course on research methodology for medical students, teachingour authors at special workshops on scientific writing, and teaching a wider physiciancommunity through continuing education courses. '^'^ ^ We also call on fellow editors todo more research into this field, so that joumai editors can make evidence-baseddecisions.

Acknowledgement: This research was funded by a research grant from the Croatian Ministry ofScience and Technology No., 108182 to MM.

REFERENCES

1. [Anonymous] (1982) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.International Committee of Medical Joumai Editors. Annals of Internal Medicine 96: 766-771.

2. [Anonymous] (1985) Editorial consensus on authorship and other matters. Lancet 2: 595.3. [Anonymous] (1988) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Annals of Internal Medicine 108: 258-265.4. [Anonymous] (1993) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals.

International Committee of Medical Joumai Editors. Joumai of the American MedicalAssociation 269: 2282-2286.

5. [Anonymous] (1997) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical joumals.Intemational Committee of Medical Joumai Editors. Annals of Internal Medicine 126: 36-47.

6. Davidoff, F., Godlee, F., Hoey, J., Glass, R., Overbeke, J., Utiger, R., Nicholls, M.G., Horton, R.,Nylenna, M., Hojgaard, L. & Kotzin, S. (2003) Uniform requirements for manuscripts submittedto biomedical joumals. Jora/o///!e^mer/ccrn Osteopathic Association 103: 137-149.

7. Burman, K.D. (1982) "Hanging from the masthead": reflections on authorship. Annals of InternalMedicine 97: 602-605.

8. Onwude, J.L., Staines, A. & Lilford, R.J. (1993) Multiple author trend worst in medicine. BritishMedicalJournal 306: 1345.

9. Kassirer, J.P. & Angell, M. (1991) On authorship and acknowledgments. New England Journal ofMedicine 325: 1510-1512.

10. Khan, K.S., Nwosu, C.R., Khan, S.F., Dwarakanath, L.S. & Chien, P.F. (1999) A controlledanalysis of authorship trends over two decades. American Joumai of Obstetrics and Gynecology181: 503-507.



11. Huth, E.J. (1986) Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Annals of Internal Medicine104: 257-259.

12. Flanagin, A., Carey, L.A., Fontanarosa, P.B., Phillips, S.G., Pace, B.P., Lundberg, G.D. &Rennie, D. (1998) Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association 280: 222-224.

13. Smith, R. (1997) Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? British MedicalJournal 314: 992.14. [Anonymous] (1997) Games people play with authors' names. Nature 387: 831.15. Flanagin, A., Fontanarosa, P.B. & DeAngelis, CD. (2002) Authorship for research groups.

Journal of the American Medical Association 288: 3166-3168.16. Horton, R. (1996) Prizes, publications, and promotion. Lancet 348: 1398.17. Horton, R. & Smith, R. (1996) Signing up for authorship. Lancet 347: 780.18. Rennie, D., Flanagin, A. & Yank, V. (2000) The contributions of authors. Journal of the

American Medical Association 284: 89-91.19. Rennie, D. (2001) Who did what? Authorship and contribution in 2001. Muscle & Nerve 24:

1274-1277.20. Marusic, A. & Marusic, M. (1999) Authorship criteria and academic reward. Lancet 353: 1713-

1714.21. Lawrence, P.A. (2002) Rank injustice. Nature 415: 835-836.22. Bennett, D.M. & Taylor, D.M. (2003) Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers.

Emergency Medicine 15: 263-270.23. [Anonymous] (2003) Who'd want to work in a team? Nature 424: 1.24. Eastwood, S., Derish, P., Leash, E. & Ordway, S. (1996) Ethical issues in biomedical research:

perceptions and practices of postdoctoral research fellows responding to a survey. Science andEngineering Ethics 2: 89-114.

25. Shapiro, D.W., Wenger, N.S. & Shapiro, M.F. (1994) The contributions of authors tomultiauthored biomedical research papers. Journal of the American Medical Association 271:438-442.

26. Hoen, W.P., Walvoort, H.C. & Overbeke, A.J. (1998) What are the factors determining authorshipand the order of the authors' names? A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voorGeneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine). Journal of the American Medical Association 280:217-218.

27. Hwang, S.S., Song, H.H., Baik, J.H., Jung, S.L., Park, S.H., Choi, K.H. & Park, Y.H. (2003)Researcher contributions and fulfillment of ICMJE authorship criteria: analysis of authorcontribution lists in research articles with multiple authors published in radiology. IntemationalCommittee of Medical Journal Editors. Radiology 226: 16-23.

28. Ward, B. (1994) Undue credit for supervisors. Nature 368: 579.29. Yank, V. & Rennie, D. (1999) Disclosure of researcher contributions: a study of original research

articles in The Lancet. Annals of Internal Medicine 130: 661-670.30. Marusic, A. & Marusic, M. (1999) Small scientific journals from small countries: breaking fi'om a

vicious circle of inadequacy. Croatian Medical Journal A^S: 508-514.31. Marusic, A., Misak, A., Kljakovic-Gaspic, M. & Marusic, M. (2002) Educatione ad excelentiam -

ten years of the Croatian medical journal. Croatian Medical Journal 43: 1-7.32. Moulopoulos, S.D., Sideris, D.A. & Georgilis, K.A. (1983) For debate . . . Individual

contributions to multiauthor papers. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) 287: 1608-1610.


M. MaruSic, J. Bozikov, V. Katavic, D. Hren, M. Kljakovic-Gapic, A. Maruid

33, Rennie, D, & Flanagin, A. (1994) Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. Journal of the American Medical Association 271: 469-471,

34, Rennie, D., Yank, V, & Emanuel, L. (1997) When authorship fails, A proposal to makecontributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association 278: 579-585,

35, Drenth, J,P, (1998) Multiple authorship: the contribution of senior authors. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 280: 219-221.

36, Riesenberg, D, & Lundberg, G,D, (1990) The order of authorship: who's on first? Journal of theAmerican Medical Association 264: 1857,

37, Horton, R, (1998) The unmasked carnival of science. Lancet 351: 688-689.38, Marusic, A. & Marusic, M, (2003) Teaching students how to read and write science: a mandatory

course on scientific research and communication in medicine. Acad Med 1%: 1235-1239,


autoría revistas pequeñas

Documents

Transcript of autoría revistas pequeñas