http://imaging.robarts.ca

Responsible Authorship

Terry PetersAcknowledgements: Colorado State University;JR Wilson, Science and Engineering

Ethics (2002) 8, 155-174

Importance of Publishing

Researchers have a responsibility to publish

Scientific literature • not a description of all one’s research

activities;• just those activities that tell a publishable

story

Publications • the currency for academic success

Rules of authorship not black and white

Students must learn the rules for any given lab/setting!

What venues are available for publication?

Research journals• Research papers• Technical notes

Teaching journals• Teaching methodologies and outcomes• Teaching material

Graduate student (and undergraduate!) journals Conference Proceedings Lay press (local papers, journals, freelance opps) Online journals, websites and blogs

Publication Considerations

A natural part of your research project. Can it be a thesis chapter? If not, do you have the time to work on

something other than your primary research project? • A good paper takes time!

Can your long term goals benefit from your efforts to publish other than primary research papers?

Do you have someone to provide oversight or mentoring of these activities?

Choosing a Journal Peer-reviewed journals considered to be

higher quality than conference proceedings PR journals usually have higher impact factor

that conf proceedings. Often conf proceedings are not considered in

rating quality of scientist for promotion However there are exceptions

• MICCAI• SigGraph

Impact Factor (IF)

“A measure reflecting the average number of citations to articles published in science and social science journals” (Wikipedia)

Frequently used as proxy for the relative importance of a journal within its field

Journals with higher impact factors deemed to be more important than those with lower ones.

Impact factors calculated yearly for those journals that are indexed in Thomson Reuter's Journal Citation Reports.

Go to Western Libraries/Web to learn more E-Resources

Web of Science• Journal Citation Reports• Cited Reference Search

Impact Factor

Impact Factor is Not Everything

Many objections to the system• Journals that publish letters and opinions that are very

controversial get high readership• “Review” articles may be highly cited but are very different

than primary research articles• Journals may publish only in “hot new areas” instead of all

disciplines if they are chasing impact factor Biological sciences tend to have much higher IFs than

engineering There are other systems to rank journal impact

• PageRank (the algorithm Google uses to rank websites) Bottom Line: No matter how you rank the journal, the

ultimate decider for many career advancement steps will be the number of articles you publish and how they are cited.

Journal IF Nature 34 Science 30 Cell 31

Annual Rev Biomed Eng 11.2 Radiology 6.5 IEEE TMI 3.5 Medical Image Analysis 3.0 Medical Physics 2.7 Physics Med Biol 2.7

H Index A number N such that an author with H-index

of N has N papers with at least N citations. A popular measure of impact of author Does not take outliers into account

• Author with only 3 groundbreaking papers with 5000 citations each still only has H-index of 3!

Cited Reference Search – “Partin, KM” Web of Science

When is authorship determined?

Responsible authorship begins before writing a manuscript

It includes a sound hypothesis, good scientific study design, and prior approval by IRB if applicable

It requires an understanding, in advance, of what authorship expectations exist in that laboratory

Authorship practices must jive with editorial rules

Information for Authors

Authorship Rules

Are there uniform standards for authorship?

ICMJE Guidelines*:

Authorship credit should be based on: 1) substantial contributions to the

conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data;

2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; … AND

3) final approval of the version to be published. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

ICMJE Guidelines (cont.):

Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or supervision of the research group, alone, does not justify authorship.

Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content.

The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the co-authors. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.

Some labs/communities have adopted a particular styleHere (Robarts Imaging/BME/MBP) usually:Student doing the work, xxx,xxx,xxx, Supervisor

All contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section.

Issues with ICMJE Standards

Many scientists do not know about these standards, although >500 medical journals subscribe to them.

Some scientists do not agree with the standards.

Some disciplines (e.g. High Energy Physics)• Tens (even >100) authors

For trainees, these standards are a good starting place for authorship discussions with their mentors.

The advisor (faculty member) makes the final determination.

Other Authorship Responsibilities

• Writing with clear, concise language• Using only accurate methods and results• Placing work in context & accurate citations• Publishing negative results• Managing Conflicts of Interest (financial &

professional)• Acknowledging sponsorship• Preventing duplicative publication (self-plagiarism)• Preventing fragmentary publication• Protecting intellectual property rights

Authorship Disputes

Authorship order Missing authors Extra authors Authorship disputes are not

considered “research misconduct”

Allegations of plagiarism or misappropriation of data/information do constitute “research misconduct”

Research Misconduct

Examples:1. fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in

proposing, conducting, or reporting research; that 2. has been committed intentionally, knowingly, or

recklessly; & that 3. has been proven by a preponderance of the

evidence• Significant departure from accepted ethical

practices of the relevant research community will be treated as violations of the Academic Faculty and Administrative Professional Manual and may be pursued under applicable disciplinary process.

Research Misconduct Examples of research misconduct could include

• fabrication of the findings of an extensive qualitative survey of the media’s impact on children,

• withholding of the risks of a drug to participants of a medical trial,

• data within the conclusions of an engineer’s report on the safety of a highway overpass.

These illustrations of research misconduct underline the need to have well-defined research integrity guidelines.

Standard definition of research integrity does not exist in Canada.

Other Authorship Issues

Misconduct does not include honest error or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.

Errata section of Journals offers opportunity to “undo” errors.

Honest ErrorsUnintentional, minor errors are sent in to the

journal as “Errata” by the corresponding editor If the errors compromise part of the conclusions,

the authors should issue a “Correction” Inadvertent errors that invalidate the study

should be sent in as a “retraction” Intentional falsification, fabrication or

plagiarism should be investigated as research misconduct

Solutions to authorship disputes

Upfront discussions about expectations Authorship contracts or agreements

(prenups) Mediation or negotiation: first, within the

research group, then external to the group (especially student advisory committees!)

Department heads and faculty deans may ultimately become involved

Discussion should be focused on credit & responsibility: who is willing to defend the data if there ever were allegations of misconduct?

Self-plagiarism

“Self-plagiarism” • The practice of re-publishing content in different venues

Not so B&W; many of us give talks on the “same” content; many of our “Materials and Methods” are (unavoidably) almost verbatim in different articles.

Reviewer community is quite small – duplication easily identified

Future search committees may do an analysis of listed publications looking for self-plagiarism.

Publication of identical sequence of words in more than one venue can lead to allegations of copyright infringement.

Copyright and Ownership Issues

Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of US/Canada to authors of original works of authorship

Protections are assigned the moment work is fixed in tangible medium, without notice

Copyright term is “Life of author + 70 years”

Rights include: to reproduce, distribute, or display the work

Activity in Library and Classroom may have slightly different rules

(used with permission from Linda Schutjer, Office of General Counsel, CSU)

Copyright and Data Ownership Summary

A student’s academic class work belongs to the student  Copyrighted works that support a patent (lab notebooks)

are retained by University but students can make copies. Ownership can be varied by contract including sponsored

arrangements.  If you work on a grant/contract to create a deliverable, your copyright interests may be assigned to or shared with the funding entity. 

If you work together with others, you may end up being joint authors if that was the intent from the beginning.  In that case you each share the whole work.

If you create something with substantial use of University  resources –– the University may end up being the owner. 

Peer Review

Based upon the idea that, because of specialization, peers with similar expertise are often the best judges of the quality of work,

Peers • can assess originality, methodology and

context.• can spot inconsistencies and often

improve data presentation and interpretation.

• are the most likely to plagiarize.

Peer Review Process

A submitted manuscript is seen by a senior editor and assigned to a managing editor.

The managing editor assigns 2-3 external peer reviewers, who are anonymous to the author

The reviewers submit a written document that addresses originality, research design, interpretation, and writing style, with a recommendation to accept as is, accept with revisions or reject.

Peer-Reviewer Responsibilities

Respond within the allocated timeframe

Be competent Be impartial Keep all information confidential Provide constructive criticism Be honest Write reviews as though your identity

might be revealed

Potential Problems with Peer Review

Bias (discipline, training, gender) Dogma (new conclusions are

risky) COI (financial and profession) Lack of expertise Mistakes can still happen Authors can always find another

journal….

Summary

You need to publish Publish wisely and in good journals If you like to write, there are many

possibilities If you are going to publish with

others, get authorship straight before writing the first draft

Understand the rules of the game Get help sooner rather than later