Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices An International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) & STP Spon - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

slide1 l.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices An International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) & STP Spon PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices An International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) & STP Spon

play fullscreen
1 / 24
Download Presentation
Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices An International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) & STP Spon
Download Presentation

Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices An International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) & STP Spon

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Responsible Authorship and Publication Practices An International Academy of Toxicologic Pathology (IATP) & STP Sponsored Workshop and Panel Discussion STP Annual Meeting Hyatt Regency Denver Mineral G Room Denver, CO June 22, 2011 12:15 – 1:30 PM

  2. Panelists • Bob Maronpot - Facilitator • John Foster, Editor-in-Chief (UK) • Susan Elmore, Associate Editor & Author • Taki Harada, Editorial Board Member (Japan) • Stephanie Dickinson, Managing Editor • Ulrich Deschl, Editor-in-Chief (Europe) • Sabine Francke-Carroll, Government Perspective

  3. Discussion Topics Prior to Case Examples • How do we define authorship? • Acknowledgements • Responsible publication practices • What constitutes plagiarism? • Redundant or duplicate publications • Disclosure of conflict of interest • Proper citation of references • Credit for ideas other than your own • Institutional/funding organization requirements for publication • Image manipulation • Responsibility of Associate Editors and Editors

  4. Authorship • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommends the following criteria for authorship • Substantial contributions to conception and design, acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data • Drafting or revising article critically for intellectual content • Final approval of the version to be published • Acquisition of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of the research group alone does not constitute authorship • All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship, and all those who qualify should be listed • Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for appropriate portions of the content

  5. Unacceptable Practices • Coercion Authorship • Person in a position of authority uses that position to compel another author to include him/her on a manuscript even though that person does not meet accepted authorship criteria • Mutual Support/Admiration Authorship • Authors agreeing to place each others’ names on their respective papers even though each may have made little or no contribution to the other’s paper • Honorary/Guest/Gift Authorship • Individual is listed as an author either solely as a gesture of respect or as an attempt to make a paper appear more creditable than it is • Inclusion of an individual without consent as an author • All authors are accountable and responsible for the information reported in a paper • Exclusion of an author that should have been identified • May have been done to hide a potential conflict of interest

  6. Acknowledgments • Contributors who do not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in an acknowledgments section • Examples include a person who provided purely technical help, writing assistance, or a department chairperson who provided only general support • If authors had assistance with study design, data collection, data analysis, or manuscript preparation, the authors should disclose the identity of the individuals who provided this assistance and the entity that supported it in the published article • Financial and material support should also be acknowledged • Groups of persons who have contributed materially to the paper but whose contributions do not justify authorship • Function or contribution should be described (i.e. “served as scientific advisors,” “critically reviewed the study proposal,” “collected data” or "provided and cared for study patients”) • These persons must give written permission to be acknowledged as readers may infer their endorsement of the data and conclusions

  7. Responsible Publication Practices • Cite (and read) the original paper rather than a more recent paper or review article that relies on the earlier paper • Permission from editors and publishers to republish • Repeat or adapt part of an earlier article one wrote in a current manuscript • Re-publishing in another language • Reprinting an article in another journal for a different audience

  8. Responsible Publication Practices • Disclosures and Conflicts of Interest (COI) • COI can be financial or personal • Sponsors can have a potential bias • Sponsors roles should be outlined in methods • Integrity of authors and journal are at stake • Journal wants to ensure objectivity in the research published • Most journals now require authors to submit a statement disclosing actual or potential conflicts of interest • Consequences of non-disclosure range from a letter of reprimand to the authors to barring the authors from publishing in the journal • Stronger reprimand include prohibiting presenting at society meetings, exclusion from society boards and committees and revocation of society membership • Recommendation: COI disclosure submitted for every author listed not just for those with conflicts

  9. Abuses of Publication Practices • Redundant/Duplicate Publications • Publish virtually the same research results in multiple journals • Inflates the importance of the work • Results appear replicated not the publications • Can result in outright rejection of the manuscript and letters to the authors and their institutions • Dual submission of same paper to different journals • Submission is withdrawn from one journal when paper is accepted by the other journal • Authors must attest that paper is not under consideration by another journal upon submission • Results published in “least publishable units” – papers just detailed enough to get published but don’t tell the full story

  10. Abuses of Publication Practices • Self-plagiarism – copying language or information from one of one’s own articles into another article • Start each manuscript from scratch • Reference earlier publications instead of repeating details • Image manipulation • Minimal color/contrast adjustments - Beautification • Changes in visual data are not acceptable • Some journals require authors to guarantee the authenticity of any submitted images

  11. How to Get Your Manuscript Published • Standard organization of paper • Abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, references • Dealing with electronic submissions, reviews & galley proofs • Clearly stated hypothesis or objective • Identification of number and characteristics of animals used • Randomization or blinding to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment • Describe statistical methods and give measure of variability • Tell the full story (avoid least publishable units) • Define importance of your work in the cover letter to the journal editor

  12. Responsibilities of an Editor? • Plagiarism – should this be screened for routinely? • Manuscript review • Ensuring fair and unbiased review – criticise the work not the authors • Transparency of processes and grievance procedures • Confidentiality in dealing with manuscripts • Images • Suitability – distasteful or offensive gross pictures? • Are they from the experiment described – electronic archive/Aperio? • Can/should we be concerned about ensuring this? • Ensuring that redundant/duplicate publications don’t slip through the net? • Disclosure of funding – relationship to NLM. • Can editors be given the tools to help avoid these or should the responsibility be the authors?

  13. Case Scenario 1 Dr. Smith is a junior staff veterinarian working with an investigator studying the effect of a drug on a disease outcome. She is responsible for administering the test drug and vehicle intranasally to rats prior to disease induction by the investigator. With the permission of the investigator, Dr. Smith collects some additional data on this project for a manuscript she is writing which examines the effect of different training techniques on reducing complications associated with different administration routes. Prior to submitting the manuscript, Dr. Smith had all of the authors review and approve the final manuscript version, including the authorship order. Dr. Smith will be the first and corresponding author, followed by two technicians, then the investigator, with Dr. Smith’s mentor/advisor as the senior (last) author.

  14. Case Scenario 1 When the manuscript comes back from the journal for further revisions, the investigator surprises Dr. Smith by asking that he be listed second rather than fourth as an author on the revised manuscript . He feels that since this manuscript was derived in part from his original research project, he as a faculty member up for promotion should be listed ahead of the two technicians who collected the additional data outside the scope of the original project, analyzed and interpreted the data, and participated in writing the manuscript under Dr. Smith’s direction. He is prepared to go to Dr. Smith’s mentor/advisor regarding this issue if the change in authorship order is not made in the revised manuscript.

  15. Case Scenario 1 • Are the investigator’s reasons for changing authorship order valid? • Is it OK to change authorship order at this stage of the review process? • Is the original authorship order appropriate for each individual’s contribution to this manuscript? • What would be appropriate reasons for changing authorship order during the manuscript development and review process?

  16. Case Scenario 1 • Should one’s position (faculty vs. technical staff) dictate authorship order? • Should the investigator have been acknowledged rather than listed as a coauthor? • What are Dr. Smith’s options if she decides to stand by the original authorship order and the investigator goes to a higher authority on this issue?

  17. Case Scenario 2 Dr. Simon just received word from the editor of an agricultural journal in Sri Lanka requesting that his recently published paper on goat diseases be submitted for publication to the journal in Sinhalese and Tamil, the two official languages of Sri Lanka. The journal is one favored by the goat farmers of Sri Lanka and the editor believes that it could be of great benefit. Dr. Simon is flattered but informs the editor that since the article is already published in a US journal for small ruminant veterinarians, it cannot be re-published.

  18. Case Scenario 2 • Is Dr. Simon accurate in his assessment of re- publishing the journal article in a Sri Lanka agriculture journal? • What might he do to ensure his take on the situation is correct?

  19. Case Scenario 3 Dr. Jones was in her second year as a postdoc and submitted a paper on the toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of a novel pharmaceutical based on her own laboratory work. Although the test agent was not toxic, representative tissue samples of liver and kidney from a few of the study animals were submitted for blind histopathologic examination at a CRO. Statistical analysis on her data was contracted to a statistical consulting company. In her manuscript Dr. Jones indicated that the histopathology was negative for lesions, as expected. She prepared tables of the statistical results for the paper and discussed the statistical findings in the Discussion. The statistician provided a short paragraph identifying the statistical procedures for the Materials and Methods section of the paper.

  20. Case Scenario 3 Dr. Jones was the first author and her major mentor was the second author. She did not list either the pathologist or statistician as co-authors. When the reviewers’ comments came back from the journal, there were questions raised about the pathology and the statistics. To respond to these questions and revised the paper accordingly, Dr. Jones consulted with the pathologist and statistician and they helped write specific responses to address the reviewers’ comments.

  21. Case Scenario 3 • Was it appropriate on the initial submission for Dr. Jones to not list the pathologist or statistician as co-authors?  • In light of the additional input from the pathologist and statistician, should Dr. Jones list them as co-authors on the resubmission? • Do you anticipate that the journal editor would raise questions about the revised co-authorship on the resubmission?

  22. Case Scenario 4 The STP in partnership with the ACVP and and the SOT established a working group to prepare a best-practices document on the future role of pathologists in the toxicogenomics era. The working group consisted of 16 members representing government, industry and academia. The working group was co-chaired by a member of STP and a member of SOT. A draft document was prepared for publication and circulated to the Executive Committees of the participating societies to insure compatibility with their respective society missions. As is usual on such working groups, the majority of the work was done by the co-chairs and three of the working group members. All working group members had the opportunity to review the draft manuscript. A manuscript was submitted for publication in Toxicologic Pathology.

  23. Case Scenario 4 • Is is appropriate for the first authors to be the chairpersons of the working group? • Should the authorship be alphabetical or based on the level of contribution provided by the workshop members? • Who should be identified as the corresponding author – one of the chairpersons?

  24. Summary • Authorship should be defined early in the research project before writing the manuscript • Be aware of and avoid publication abuses • Know the institutional, organizational and journal requirements for publication • Always obtain permission before acknowledging someone in a submitted manuscript.