Disclosure of researcher contributions:: A study of original research articles in The Lancet

被引:123
作者
Yank, V [1 ]
Rennie, D [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Calif San Francisco, Inst Hlth Policy Studies, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
关键词
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-130-8-199904200-00013
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Authorship disputes and abuses have increased in recent years. In response to a proposal that researcher contributions be specified for readers, The Lancet began disclosing such contributions at the end of original articles. Objective: To analyze the descriptions researchers use for their contributions and to determine how the order of names on the byline corresponds to these contributions, whether persons listed on the byline fulfill a lenient version of the criteria for authorship specified by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (the Vancouver Group), and whether the contributions of persons listed as contributors overlap with the contributions of those who are acknowledged. Design: Descriptive study. Measurements: A taxonomy of researchers' contributions was developed and applied to researchers' self-reported contributions to original research articles published in The Lancet from July to December 1997. Results: Contributors lists occupied little page space (mean, 2.5 cm of column length). Placement on the byline did not indicate the specific category of task performed, although the first contributor position corresponded to a significantly greater number of contributions (mean numbers of contributions: first-contributor position, 3.23; second-contributor position, 2.51; third-contributor position, 2.20; and fourth-contributor position, 2.51) (P < 0.01). Forty-four percent of contributors on the byline did not fulfill a lenient version of the Vancouver Group's criteria for authorship. Sixty percent of the most common categories of activities described on contributors lists overlapped with those on acknowledgments lists. Conclusions: Publication of lists that specify contributions to research articles is feasible and seems to impart important information. The criteria for authorship outlined by the Vancouver Group do not seem to be congruent with the self-identified contributions of researchers.
引用
收藏
页码:661 / 670
页数:10
相关论文
共 23 条
  • [1] The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty
    Bhopal, R
    Rankin, J
    McColl, E
    Thomas, L
    Kaner, E
    Stacy, R
    Pearson, P
    Vernon, B
    Rodgers, H
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1997, 314 (7086) : 1009 - 1012
  • [2] Davies D, 1996, CAN MED ASSOC J, V155, P877
  • [3] Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals
    Flanagin, A
    Carey, LA
    Fontanarosa, PB
    Phillips, SG
    Pace, BP
    Lundberg, GD
    Rennie, D
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03): : 222 - 224
  • [4] GLANTZ SA, 1990, PRIMER APPLIED REGRE, P300
  • [5] Definition of ''authorship'' may be changed
    Godlee, F
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1996, 312 (7045) : 1501 - 1502
  • [6] What are the factors determining authorship and the order of the authors' names? -: A study among authors of the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde (Dutch Journal of Medicine)
    Hoen, WP
    Walvoort, HC
    Overbeke, AJPM
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 280 (03): : 217 - 218
  • [7] The unmasked carnival of science
    Horton, R
    [J]. LANCET, 1998, 351 (9104) : 688 - 689
  • [8] MEASUREMENT OF OBSERVER AGREEMENT FOR CATEGORICAL DATA
    LANDIS, JR
    KOCH, GG
    [J]. BIOMETRICS, 1977, 33 (01) : 159 - 174
  • [9] LEDERBERG J, 1993, SCIENTIST 0208, P10
  • [10] What does authorship mean in a peer-reviewed medical journal?
    Lundberg, GD
    Glass, RM
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (01): : 75 - 75