Clarifying middle authorship contributions to reduce abuses in science publishing and assessment of top-ranked SJR biochemistry and pharmacology journals' authorship criteria.

So-called "middle authors," being neither the first, last, nor corresponding author of an academic paper, have made increasing relative contributions to academic scholarship over recent decades. No work has specifically and explicitly addressed the roles, rights, and responsibilities of middle authors, an authorship position which we believe is particularly vulnerable to abuse via growing phenomena such as paper mills. Responsible middle authorship requires transparent declarations of intellectual and other scientific contributions that journals can and should require of co-authors and established guidelines and criteria to achieve this already exist (ICMJE/CRediT). Although publishers, editors, and authors need to collectively uphold a situation of shared responsibility for appropriate co-authorship, current models have failed science since verification of authorship is impossible, except through blind trust in authors' statements. During the retraction of a paper, while the opinion of individual co-authors might be noted in a retraction notice, the retraction itself practically erases the relevance of co-author contributions and position/status (first, leading, senior, last, co-corresponding, etc.). Paper mills may have successfully proliferated because individual authors' roles and responsibilities are not tangibly verifiable and are thus indiscernible. We draw on a historical example of manipulated research to argue that authors and editors should publish publicly available, traceable contributions to the intellectual content of an article-both classical authorship or technical contributions-to maximize both visibility of individual contributions and accountability. To make our article practically more relevant to this journal's readership, we reviewed the top 50 Q1 journals in the fields of biochemistry and pharmacology, as ranked by the SJR, to appreciate which journals adopted the ICMJE or CRediT schools of authorship contribution, finding significant variation in adhesion to ICMJE guidelines nor the CRediT criteria and wording of author guidelines.

Journal requirement for data sharing statements in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Data sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting and represent a step toward data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. We aimed to assess the requirement for data sharing statements of individual participant data by biomedical journals and explore associations between journal characteristics and journal requirements for data sharing statements. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: In this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements. RESULTS: Of the 3229 biomedical journals included in the analysis, 2345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43-4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78-3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were open access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81. CONCLUSION: Despite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of the biomedical journals that published clinical trials did not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.

Enhancing Research Integrity and Publication Ethics: An Analysis of the Latest International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Recommendations.

In the ever-evolving landscape of biomedical research and publishing, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations serve as a critical framework for maintaining ethical standards. By providing a framework that adapts to technological advancements, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations actively shape responsible and transparent practices, ensuring the integrity of scientific inquiry and fostering global collaboration in the ever-evolving landscape of medical publishing. This editorial delves into key aspects of the latest changes in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, focusing on authorship, conflict of interest disclosure, data sharing and reproducibility, medical publishing and carbon emissions, the use of artificial intelligence, and the challenges posed by predatory journals within the realm of open access. It emphasizes the importance of new recommendations, which represent a beacon of ethical guidance in the ever-evolving domain of biomedical research and publishing.

How are authors' contributions verified in the ICMJE model?

A recent editorial in Plant Cell Reports reaffirms what has been known for years, namely, that it follows the four ICMJE clauses of authorship. That editorial even provides a "perfect" model contribution statement. In this letter, I argue that in reality and in practice, authorship delimitations are not that clear-cut, nor are all contributions equal or equally weighted. More importantly, I opine that no matter how eloquently an author contribution statement is written, editors have no way to verify the veracity of those claims. In essence, absent authorship contribution verification, the ICMJE guidelines are practically useless. The responsibility for verification, even to determine authorship associated with papermills or the "ghost" contribution of text by AI like ChatGPT, lies entirely with editors and publishers. Although an unpopular meme, there is need for academic publishing to return to a state of no blind trust.

Is ChatGPT a valid author?

This letter to the editors takes a deeper look at the validity and ethics of authorship of a recently published article in Nurse Education in Practice in which authorship was shared with a chatbox software program, ChatGPT (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2022.103537). In particular, a closer assessment is made of the authorship of that article from the established principles of authorship as delineated by the ICMJE.

Letter to editor: NLP systems such as ChatGPT cannot be listed as an author because these cannot fulfill widely adopted authorship criteria.

This letter to the editor suggests adding a technical point to the new editorial policy expounded by Hosseini et al. on the mandatory disclosure of any use of natural language processing (NLP) systems, or generative AI, in writing scholarly publications. Such AI systems should naturally also be forbidden from being named as authors, because they would not have fulfilled prevailing authorship guidelines (such as the widely adopted ICMJE authorship criteria).

In defense of the ICMJE authorship guideline, a rejoinder to Curzer.

Curzer (Curzer 2021. Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility, Accountability in Research 28:1-22) has constructed cogent and important arguments against the ICMJE authorship criteria from various philosophical perspectives. Here, we provide differing opinions to Curzer's points, primarily from the perspective of biomedical sciences (for which the ICMJE authorship criteria are originally meant for). We could neither identify nor concur with Curzer's opinion of a "disconnect" between writer and researcher in contemporary biomedical science publications, or see definitive value in the notion that intellectual and non-intellectual contributors should be equally credited. Furthermore, we note that consequentialist argument for utility, Rawlsian justice, as well as Kantian deontology are all not in disagreement with the ICMJE criteria. In brief, while we find Curzer's arguments to be participant or people-centric, these are not particularly in line with either the philosophy or the practice of science. We posit that the key concept underlying the ICMJE authorship criteria, in which authorship entails a coupling of intellectual credit to accountability, should remain a cornerstone in the practice of scientific research.

Mapping author taxonomies and author criteria: good practices for thinking through complex authorship situations.

Authorship criteria can be difficult to apply in complex situations, such as multicenter clinical trials, multidisciplinary research, or manuscripts reporting the results of several studies. Authors may need additional guidance to appropriately credit their colleagues even when using existing accepted author criteria and/or contributor taxonomies to guide their decisions. Definitions and explanations of authorship by various editorial groups such as International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors emphasize intellectual input and accountability. Existing contributor taxonomies list additional activities that should be credited, but do not stand in for authorship criteria or confer authorship. The literature was searched for existing guidelines for authors that suggest how to apply accepted authorship criteria to activities listed in contributor taxonomies. No publication was identified that mapped specific authorship criteria to particular contributor taxonomies. Suggestions were developed to assist in differentiating activities that meet author criteria from other contributions outlined in two existing contributor taxonomies.

The teams that conduct and publish medical and scientific research must decide who should be listed as an author on articles and other publications. Even though journal editors provide author guidelines, members of research teams can disagree about how to use them. Certain problems occur when studies are done by large groups of researchers or by experts who do different kinds of research. This paper suggests some ways to use the guidelines from major editorial groups like the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, the Committee on Publication Ethics, the World Association of Medical Editors, and the Council of Science Editors. The guidelines are compared and explained, and then a specific process is outlined for using these guidelines. Charts were made to show authors how to match possible contributions to some specific author guidelines.

Honorary authorship in health sciences: a protocol for a systematic review of survey research.

BACKGROUND: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. METHODS: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org , and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. DISCUSSION: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/ .

Building consensus on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research: recommendations from an expert task force of medical publication professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many biomedical journals follow the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations and criteria for authorship. ICMJE criterion 1 provides the basis for selecting authors according to their substantial contributions to the work reported in the publication. Identifying substantial contributions and their application for author selection can be challenging, especially for multicenter studies with large numbers of investigators and contributors. Contributions are not frequently documented during study conduct and authorship decisions may lack transparency, objectivity, and context. METHODS: The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) Authorship Task Force surveyed members on authorship practices, reviewed the literature defining substantial contributions to ICMJE criterion 1, and assessed existing tools or algorithms for determining authorship in industry-sponsored research. Contributions were categorized under the four sub-categories of ICMJE criterion 1: study concept and design, acquisition of data, data analysis, and data interpretation. RESULTS: Survey findings and literature review confirmed the need for clear and consistent interpretation, application, and documentation of ICMJE criterion 1 for transparent decisions about authorship. The Task Force reached consensus on definitions of substantial contributions to be considered when selecting authors of industry-sponsored research. The subsequent recommendations were grouped according to the sub-categories of ICMJE criterion 1. In addition, the Task Force developed recommendations regarding contributions that do not merit authorship designation. CONCLUSIONS: The Task Force recommendations for objective and consistent interpretation of ICMJE criterion 1 will facilitate an author selection process grounded in the core principles of substantial intellectual contribution to the work's conception or design, or to the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data. While these recommendations are focused on author selection practices for industry-sponsored research, they may be applicable to publications in other areas of scientific and biomedical research.

Exploring Knowledge and Perceptions of Faculty Members about Authorship: A Study from Jordan.

Authorship has important implications and carries considerable responsibilities. The present study explored faculty members knowledge and perceptions of authorship at Jordanian universities. For this research a survey was distributed to faculty members at three major universities in Jordan. The study found that only 33% of the participants were aware about International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). In addition, the knowledge of the participants about basic principles of authorship was rated as medium. The number of research and level of ICMJE knowledge was found to exert a significant effect on commitment to authorship principle subscale score. Finally, the majority expressed good authorship believes that graduate students should be the lead authors on the publications that are derived from their thesis. Knowledge about authorship principles among faculty members in Jordan needs improvements.

A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship.

BACKGROUND: Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor-mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 medical journals. However, the binary ICMJEc have not yet been quantified. AIM: To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims. METHODS: The four ICMJEc were separated into the nine authorship components of conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation of data, draft, revision, final approval and accountability. In spring 2021, members of an international association of medical editors rated the importance of each authorship component using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no importance) to 10 (most important). The median component scores were used to calibrate the pairwise comparisons in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP priority weights were multiplied against a four-level perceived effort/capability grade to calculate an authorship score. RESULTS: Sixty-six decision-making medical editors completed the survey. The components had the median scores/AHP weights: conception 7.5/5.3%; design 8/8.9%; data acquisition 7/3.6%; data analysis 7/3.6%; interpretation of data 8/8.9%; draft 8/8.9%; revision 8/8.9%; final approval 9/20.1%; and accountability 10/31.8%, with Kruskal-Wallis Chi2 = 65.11, p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The editors rated accountability as the most important component of authorship, followed by the final approval of the manuscript; data acquisition had the lowest median importance score for authorship. The scoring rubric (https://tinyurl.com/eyu86y96) transforms the binary tetrad ICMJEc into 9 quantifiable components of authorship, providing a transparent method to objectively assess authorship contributions, determine authorship order and potentially decrease the abuse of authorship. If desired, individual journals can survey their editorial boards and use the AHP method to derive customized weightings for an ICMJEc-based authorship index.

Authorship decision-making in the field of orthopedic surgery and sports medicine.

PURPOSE: To facilitate decision-making in authorship positions, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editor (ICMJE) developed a guideline that stipulates criteria authors should meet in order to merit authorship. Authors who did not meet these criteria and still enlisted as authors, are called 'honorary' authors. In this study, the prevalence and characteristics of honorary authorship (HA) is assessed in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine. METHODS: A survey was distributed among corresponding authors of articles published in 2019 in six Orthopedics-dedicated journals. RESULTS: 479 of the 1392 approached authors responded, leading to a response rate of 34.4%. 91.6% of the respondents were aware of the ICMJE guidelines, whereas 67.8% were aware of the issue of HA. Overall, the prevalence of guideline-based HA was 41.9%, while the prevalence of self-perceived HA was 14.7%. Having a senior member automatically enlisted as author on the departments, was associated with a higher rate of guideline-based HA (OR 5.03) and self-perceived HA (OR 3.31). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of HA in the field of Orthopedics and Sports Medicine is high, but comparable to other medical fields. Transparency in authorship decision-making is crucial to maintain liability in scientific articles.

Knowledge and Perceptions of Honorary Authorship among Health Care Researchers: Online Cross-sectional Survey Data from the Middle East.

One of the core problems of scientific research authorship is honorary authorship. It violates the ethical principle of clear and appropriate assignment of scientific research contributions. The prevalence of honorary authorship worldwide is alarmingly high across various research disciplines. As a result, many academic institutions and publishers were trying to explore ways to overcome this unethical research practice. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommended criteria for authorship as guidance for researchers submitting manuscripts to biomedical Journals. However, despite the ICMJE guidelines, honorary authorship is still significantly present across various health research disciplines. The aim of this study was to explore the perceptions and knowledge of health care researchers towards honorary authorship according to the ICMJE guidelines across different health care fields in Jordan, which to our knowledge was never explored before. Data from an electronic survey that was distributed among researchers working in different healthcare fields across several major universities in Jordan, revealed that most of the respondents were assistant professors working mainly in the schools of Medicine and Pharmacy. The majority of the respondents (65.5%) were not aware of the ICMJE authorship guidelines. And, around 37% reported the inclusion of an honorary author, in which the most common non-authorship task reported by 73% of the respondents was reviewing the manuscript. Our findings emphasize the need for national academic and research institutions to address the issue of authorship in their educational programs and internal policies.

Published trials of TACE for HCC are often not registered and subject to outcome reporting bias.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: In 2005, the registration of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before enrolment of participants became a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to increase transparency in trial reporting. Among RCTs on transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) published after 2007, we assess the proportion that were registered and compare registered primary outcomes (PO) with those reported in publications to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favoured significant outcomes. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for reports of RCTs evaluating TACE for HCC treatment between 1 September 2007 and 31 March 2018. Registration and publication information for each included RCT was compared using a standardised data extraction form. RESULTS: Thirteen out of 53 (25%) included RCTs were correctly registered (i.e. before the starting date of the RCT), 14 (26%) were registered after the RCT starting date, and 26 (49%) were not registered. Six out of 14 of the retrospectively registered RCTs (43%) were registered after their completion date. The PO was clearly reported in the published article of all registered RCTs, whereas the report was not clear in 8/26 (31%) of the non-registered RCTs (p = 0.01). Among registered RCTs, 8/27 (30%) had major discrepancies between registered and published PO. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in 6 of them and was shown to statistically favour significant results in 2. CONCLUSIONS: Registration and outcome reporting in RCTs on TACE for HCC are often inadequate. Registration should be reinforced because it is a key to transparency. LAY SUMMARY: Trial registration is fundamental to our understanding and interpretation of results, as it provides information on all relevant clinical trials (to place the results in a broader context), and on the details of their associated protocols (to ensure that the scientific plan is followed). Once a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is completed, the trial results are usually publicly shared via scientific articles that are expected to thoroughly and objectively report them. This study shows that half of the RCTs evaluating transarterial chemoembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma were not registered, and identified major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome favouring significant results.

Elucidating authorship issues as an element of research quality at Thailand's National Science and Technology Development Agency.

Authorship in a scientific publication is an indicator of significant intellectual contribution in scientific work. Regardless of the discipline, it is important for research-related personnel to receive credit and take responsibility for their publications. There are currently several systems of listing authorship that arise from many factors such as research complexity, pressure to obtain funding, hierarchical structure, and promotion. Some of these may unfortunately lead to authorship abuse. Raising awareness and understanding of authorship guidelines can help prevent abuses and disputes. National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) is a national research agency of Thailand with about 2 000 research staff members. The research emphasis of the agency is mainly technology development for application in broad areas, ranging from engineering to medicine, including forensic science. We conducted a survey to identify the level of awareness of NSTDA research staff and their authorship practices. A questionnaire was designed based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship guidelines and used to survey 15% of randomly selected NSTDA research staff. Nearly 90% of them responded to the interview. Among the respondents, 60% were not sure about authorship criteria. When presented with the ICMJE criteria, more than 90% agreed with the criteria except for the third one, approval of the final manuscript before submission, 33% of respondents thought that authors are only responsible for their particular contribution. However, nearly 80% agreed that every author is responsible for the integrity of the whole manuscript. These results offered an important foundation for forming a strategy to raise awareness about authorship in NSTDA. Following survey analysis, we organized several seminars and developed learning materials and an authorship guideline to increase the level of awareness of authorship for researchers.

How many scientists does it take to write a COVID-19 case report?

Aim of this work is to explore authorship patterns in COVID-19 case reports. As of August 2020, i.e. 6 months after the first COVID-19 publication was released, more than 40000 articles have been published in Medline, the 1552 being indexed as case reports (COVID Group). During the same period, a Medline search for case reports about infectious diseases excluding COVID-19 (ID Group), identified 496 publications. The two groups were compared in terms of authorship. COVID-19 case reports had a mean of 6.1 authors per manuscript (median 5, SD 3.8), compared to 6.2 (median 5, SD 3.3) in the other group (p = .43). The COVID-19 group had 51 cases (3.3%) authored from 15 or more authors, compared to 1.4% (7 cases) in the ID group (p = .03). Fourteen percent of all COVID-19 case reports have 10 or more authors and 13 manuscripts (1%) have been authored by 20 or more persons. We conclude that COVID-19 case reports reflect the modern trend of authorship proliferation with two-page case reports being authored from >15 scientists.

Honorary authorship in cardiothoracic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Honorary authorship (HA) refers to enlisted authors who did not make sufficient contributions to a paper according to the guidelines, as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). This study assessed the proportion of, and factors associated with, HA in cardiothoracic surgical literature in 2017. METHODS: Five cardiothoracic surgery journals were selected based on their impact factors in 2017 for evaluation of HA. Articles were included in the analysis if there was more than 1 listed author and if there was an available E-mail address of the corresponding author. All corresponding authors received an invitation to fill out our survey regarding their paper in 2017. RESULTS: In total, 1511 authors opened the invitation, resulting in a total of 590 respondents (28.9%); 77.1% of all authors were aware of the ICMJE guidelines and 47.0% were aware of the general issue of HA. A total of 367 (62.7%) authors stated that at least one of the coauthors had performed solely nonauthorship tasks, whereas 148 (25.3%) authors stated that they believed that their article contained at least one honorary author. Having a senior member who was automatically included on all submitted manuscripts and not being aware of the general issue of HA were associated with significantly greater odds of having HA. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that, despite the high awareness of the ICMJE guidelines, there is a large discrepancy in perceived HA and guideline-based HA. The authors plead for a better understanding and implementation of the guidelines in a more transparent authorship system.

Authorship and justice: Credit and responsibility.

According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), those who make significant intellectual contributions to a research project, and accept indirect responsibility for the entirety of the work should be listed as authors. All other contributors should be merely acknowledged. I argue that the ICMJE policy is unjust by consequentialist, deontological, and common sense standards. Because different sorts of contributions are incommensurable, ranking contributions is usually impossible. In particular, privileging intellectual contributions, and banishing non-intellectual contributions (e.g. funding, administration, routine data collection) to the Acknowledgments section is unfair to non-intellectual contributors. Holding contributors responsible for the errors or misconduct of others is also unjust. Contributors should be blamed (and sometimes punished) for all and only their own errors or misconduct. Their punishment should be proportional to the harm done; their blame to the ease with which their errors and misconduct could have been avoided. The ICMJE policy goes wrong by using the outdated, overly constraining practice of authorship as a vehicle for allocation of credit and responsibility. My alternative policy would replace the author byline and Acknowledgment sections of articles with Contributors pages listing all contributors to the research project, along with descriptions of their contributions.