1. Authorship and the reviewer process Joana Pinto Vieira Matthieu Delincé Nicole Zürcher Responsible Conduct in Biomedical Research, EPFL, April 13 th 2012

2. Authorship – Case Study A.Team Alex: Why should he have been a co-author? A.Team Anna/PI: Why should he not be a co-author?

3. Authorship Authorship should be limited to those who meet all the following criteria [1.] have made a significant personal contribution to the concept, design, execution or interpretation of the research study; [2.] participate in the writing of the manuscript; and [3.] approve the final version of the manuscript. Guidelines for research integrity and good scientific practice at the EPFL, 2009

4. Authorship – other issues Who takes responsibility for the study as a whole ? Clearly declare who contributed and how Acknowledgements (technical help, material contribution, general support) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Ethical Considerations (www.icmje.org)

5. Review process – Current standard Authors submit manuscript to Journal EditorReject  Reviewers suggestions: - reject - major changes - minor changes - accept Decision communicated to the authors: - Rejected  - modify according to reviewers - Accepted

6. Current review process AdvantagesDisadvantages A peer = an expert in the field reviews the study  reassures the public, trust that the review was well conducted  publication record is useful for allocation of funding Conflict of interests for reviewers Collaborator Competitor Financial profit Antipathy, etc… Weeds out most of the flawed studiesBias towards publication of positive results Non-detection of fraudulent research Inefficiency, as it is a slow process Anonymity of reviewer? Postnote, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Number 182, September 2002 PLoSONE Guidelines for Reviewers (www.plosone.org) In our opinion:

7. Signed review DisadvantageAdvantage Reviewer does not dare criticizing too harshly e.g younger scientists vs. established senior scientist or vs. someone they may want to collaborate with in the future  reviews will be less critical Renders reviewers more accountable  reduces abuses Harder to find reviewers willing to leave the anonymity Increases credit given to a review Postnote, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Number 182, September 2002

8. An alternative, arχiv.org Open access to preprints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics More than 6000 submissions / month Moderators for different topics (non-anonymous) “Endorsement system” Majority of articles later sent to peer-review journals Dubious preprints reclassified (not deleted)

9. arχiv.org What do you think of this system? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the arχiv system compared to the current peer-review system?

10. Thank you for your attention and (hopefully) for your participation!