Presentation on theme: "Customs for authorship in Biomedicine Peter G Robinson School of Clinical Dentistry."— Presentation transcript:
Customs for authorship in Biomedicine Peter G Robinson School of Clinical Dentistry
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
Explicit criteria for authorship ICMJE 2003 1.Contribute to concept & design, data acquisition, analysis or interpretation 2.Draft / revise for important intellectual content 3.Final approval Must meet 1, 2, & 3 AND take public responsibility Get funding, collect data, supervise group
Order of authors – Default setting 1 st Author: 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
Order of authors – PGR students Primary papers: 1 st Author: Student Last / Senior author: Supervisor 2 nd Author: 2 nd supervisor Additional papers are more flexible Supervisors first / Student alone etc.
Our approach Albert & Wager, 2003 Culture of ethical authorship Leadership Explicit criteria for authorshipDiscipline specific Institution Discussing authorship when planning Decide authorship before start each article
Murky areas Is authorship negotiated, transparent & fair? Always tried to make it so. Think we 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
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
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
Two more horror stories A person who reviewed the grant An aggrieved colleague Explicit standards helped in both cases Important to see in context
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!