Authorship: Difference between revisions

From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Publications are usually key to a career in science. That's why there are often conflicts about whether a person is included as author and if so at which position. Conventions vary by country and institution and change over time. But which criteria should be applied? The Vancouver Convention attempted to give an answer but is not implemented by all.
Publications are usually key to a career in science. That's why there are often conflicts about whether a person is included as author and if so at which position. Conventions vary by country and institution and change over time. But which criteria should be applied? The Vancouver Convention attempted to give an answer but is not implemented by all.


== Vancouver Convention ==
== Vancouver Convention / Uniform Requirements ==


=== contents ===
=== contents ===
Line 33: Line 33:
* excellent teaching module on [http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/auth.html responsible authorship] including several scenarios from onlineethics.org
* excellent teaching module on [http://onlineethics.org/reseth/mod/auth.html responsible authorship] including several scenarios from onlineethics.org
* onlineethics' [http://onlineethics.org/topics/author.html directory on authorship] containing several interesting articles and many cases
* onlineethics' [http://onlineethics.org/topics/author.html directory on authorship] containing several interesting articles and many cases
* original article on the Vancouver Convention: International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: Uniform requirements submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA 1993; 269: 2282- 6.
* original publications Vancouver Convention/Uniform Requirement
:- "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" NEJM 1997, 335: 309-315, updated 2000
:- "Uniform requirements submitted to biomedical journals" JAMA 1993; 269: 2282- 6.
* [[wikipedia:Research ethics|research ethics]] entry in Wikipedia
* [[wikipedia:Research ethics|research ethics]] entry in Wikipedia
* article on [http://www.ijme.in/043mi078.html ethics of authorship] by Indian Journal of Medical Ethics
* article on [http://www.ijme.in/043mi078.html ethics of authorship] by Indian Journal of Medical Ethics
* article discussing the [http://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/vol2/rome-c1.html Vancouver Conventions] from onlineethics.org
* article discussing the [http://onlineethics.org/reseth/appe/vol2/rome-c1.html Vancouver Conventions] from onlineethics.org
* research article on [http://www.bmj.com/collections/author3.htm authors/paper trends] from BMJ
* research article on [http://www.bmj.com/collections/author3.htm authors/paper trends] from BMJ
== to do ==
* what's the latest version of the VC; the source above is from '93; surely, wasn't left unchanged
* more critical discussion, more cases

Revision as of 11:26, 7 March 2007

Publications are usually key to a career in science. That's why there are often conflicts about whether a person is included as author and if so at which position. Conventions vary by country and institution and change over time. But which criteria should be applied? The Vancouver Convention attempted to give an answer but is not implemented by all.

Vancouver Convention / Uniform Requirements

contents

Authors: The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) = the Vancouver group
Summary: authorship requires "substantial contribution" to either

  • conception and design or
  • acquisition of data or
  • analysis and interpretation of data

The editors committee also emphasises that drafting or revising and the final approval of the version to be published are necessary for authorship.

Criteria not sufficient for authorship are:

  • acquisition of funding
  • collection of data??
  • general supervision of the research group

> read the 2000 version of the ICMJE recommendation in more detail on onlineethics.org

discussion

R. D. Ganatra criticises the following points: "These guidelines were established to safeguard the position of the editors of journals and are concerned primarily with the written version of a scientific paper. They do not consider how the research project was conducted and who collected experimental data. They ignore technicians who slog to collect the data reported. The guidelines say nothing about researchers who have contributed to the work but whose names are left out of the paper." [1]

Is the Vancouver Convention too vague? Consider this quote of an arbiter explaining the convention: "To be a co-author, a person’s contribution must be substantial, it must be related to the project and the author must have participated in the whole process with critical reflection." Knut Ruyter, National Committee for Medical Research Ethics (NEM). What is substantial is a common question asked.

cases

links

  • excellent teaching module on responsible authorship including several scenarios from onlineethics.org
  • onlineethics' directory on authorship containing several interesting articles and many cases
  • original publications Vancouver Convention/Uniform Requirement
- "Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals" NEJM 1997, 335: 309-315, updated 2000
- "Uniform requirements submitted to biomedical journals" JAMA 1993; 269: 2282- 6.