1 / 11

Customs for authorship in Biomedicine

Customs for authorship in Biomedicine. Peter G Robinson School of Clinical Dentistry. A bit of context. Our currency = the peer-reviewed paper C oncise : 2500 - 5000 words High volume: 20 = Senior Lecturer Most are multi-author Reflects team & multidisciplinary working

nanda
Download Presentation

Customs for authorship in Biomedicine

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Customs for authorship in Biomedicine Peter G Robinson School of Clinical Dentistry

  2. A bit of context • Our currency =the peer-reviewed paper • Concise: 2500 -5000 words • High volume: 20 = Senior Lecturer • Most are multi-author • Reflects team & multidisciplinary working Arrived Sheffield in 2002, Head of Unit in 2004, DoR 2011

  3. Explicit criteria for authorshipICMJE 2003 • Contribute to concept &design, data acquisition, analysis or interpretation • Draft / revise for important intellectual content • Final approval Must meet 1, 2, & 3 AND take public responsibility Get funding, collect data, supervise group

  4. Order of authors – Default setting 1stAuthor: 1° contributor, leg work, made it happen • Common agreement. May vary within a project Last/Senior author: Research group / project lead Middle: Everyone else, order by contribution / alphabetically

  5. Order of authors – PGR students Primary papers: • 1stAuthor: Student • Last / Senior author: Supervisor • 2ndAuthor: 2nd supervisor Additional papersare more flexible • Supervisors first/ Student alone etc.

  6. Our approach Albert & Wager, 2003 Culture of ethical authorship • Leadership • Explicit criteria for authorship Discipline specific Institution Discussing authorship when planning Decide authorship before start each article

  7. Murky areas Is authorship negotiated, transparent & fair? • Always tried to make it so. Thinkwe have no complaints • Elsewhere . . . Are authorship disputes common? • I hear of them, but not in our group • Frequency is not the issue . . . Masked by culture

  8. Murky areas Gift authorship? • No. We are generous, but do not gift • Tempting for REF Ghost authors • Not in our group, elsewhere . . . • NHS trainees may recruit patients • RAs do substantially more but lose out

  9. Murky areas Discipline specific definitions of authorship? • Yes • Some journals require authors to list contribution GRIPP recognised within discipline? • Explicit standards probably exceed • Adherence is another matter

  10. Two more horror stories A person who reviewed the grant An aggrieved colleague Explicit standards helped in both cases Important to see in context

  11. Helpful references Albert T, Wager E. How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers. The COPE Report 2003 Goodman NW. Survey of fulfilment of criteria for authorship in published medical research. BMJ 1994; 309:1482 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (Vancouver Group)Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication 2003 Smith J. Gift authorship: a poisoned chalice? BMJ 1994;309:1456–7. Thank you very much!

More Related