Who is an author?Michael Farthing

www.ukrio.org

info@ukrio.org

Shared values

• Honesty – conveying information truthfully and honoring

commitments

• Accuracy – reporting findings precisely and taking care

to avoid errors

• Efficiency – using resources wisely and avoiding waste

• Objectivity–letting the facts speak for themselves and

avoiding improper bias

Who is an author?

Responsible authorship?

•How to decide?•Who decides?•When is the decision made?•Implications?

Authorship

Authorship credit should be based only on substantial

contributions to all of the following:

•Conception and design or acquisition of data or analysis and

interpretation of data; and to

•Drafting the article or revising it critically for important

intellectual content; and

•Final approval of the version to be published

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 36-47

Authorship

• Participation solely in the acquisition of funding or

the collection of data does not justify authorship

• General supervision of the research group is also

not sufficient for authorship

Authorship- ‘In an ideal world’

• Authors should provide a description of what each

contributed

• Editors should publish that information

• All others should be named in the acknowledgments

Authorship

Responsibilities of authors

•Agree study design

•Agree authorship

•Ethical considerations

•Maintain accurate and auditable records

Authorship

Corresponding or primary author assumes

responsibility for:

•Accuracy of the data

•The names listed as authors

•Approval of the final draft by all

•Handling all correspondence and enquiries

Authorship

Authorship………..

or ‘contributorship’ ?

Publication ethics: The interested parties

AuthorAuthor ReviewerReviewer

EditorEditor

Interested parties

AuthorAuthor ReviewerReviewer

EditorEditor PublisherPublisher

OwnerOwner

PharmaPharma33rdrd party party PharmaPharma

33rdrd Party Party

PharmaPharma33rdrd party party

PharmaPharma33rdrd party party

When Authorship goes wrong

UKRIO cases 2007-11

%

Authorship

Authors’ misdemeanours:

•Honorary (‘Gift’) authorship

•Dual (multiple) submission

•Failure to disclose conflicts of interest

•‘Salami slicing’ or ‘Salami publication’

•Redundant (duplicate) publication

Who is an author?

Other kinds of authors!

• ‘Gift’ authors

• ‘Ghost’ (professional) authors

Are they OK? What are the dangers?

Are ‘Ghost authors’ OK?

• Industry initiated trials

• 1994-5

• n = 44

• Copenhagen, Fredericksberg

• Compared trial protocols

with authors of publication

• 33 of 44 (75%) ‘Ghosted’

Plos Medicine 2007;4:e19

Does funding source influence outcomes?

• Systematic review of 30 studies

• 13 /16 funded by the industry were favourable

• Industry studies 4 times likely to be positive

• 5 examined economics – all positive

Lexchin et al, BMJ 2003; 326: 1167

Bias in meta analyses

• Comparison of Cochrane reviews and

industry supported/other reviews of the same pair of drugs

• n = 24

• Cochrane higher quality and more likely to consider bias (p = 0.02)

• Non-Cochrane more likely to recommend the experimental drug (p = 0.02)

Jorgensen et al, BMJ 2006; 333: 782

Are ‘Ghost Authors’ OK?

Launch mid 1990’s…..e

rosive oesophagitis describ

ed 1994

Authorship

Case discussion

Case study 1

A case from GUT

•Fabrication /falsification ?

•‘Gift’ authorship

•Forgery and fraud

Case study 2

• Two researchers in adjacent labs are asked by their supervisor to plan a joint study

• Each researcher has a different but complimentary technique to bring to the study

• The work progresses rapidly and within 4 months they have sufficient data to present at a conference and to write up as a full paper.

• The researchers ask for a meeting with the supervisor as they cannot agree who should give the conference presentation……

• And who should write the paper

Case study 2

• Is this a reasonable request?

• What is the problem?

• How could it have been prevented?

• Who is at fault?

• How should it be resolved?

Case study 3

• You are approached by Dr Jones, a researcher at your university. He states that he was surprised and very upset to learn recently that a book he had written jointly with a colleague, Dr Smith, is to be published with Dr Smith as the sole author. Dr Jones’ role in the research and the book will be acknowledged in the list of contributors to the project, nothing more.

• The book is based on research which was conducted by Dr Jones and Dr Smith under the auspices of your university. A number of articles relating to the research have previously been published in peer reviewed journals.

Case study 3• Dr Jones states that he and Dr Smith had previously

agreed that the book was a joint work and that they would each receive co-authorship. He does not have any written record of this agreement or any discussions regarding authorship.

• Dr Jones tells you that he has spoken to Dr Smith in an attempt to reach some sort of agreement on the matter but was unsuccessful. He states that he has also spoken to the publishers of the book. Their response was that they had received reassurances from Dr Smith which they accept and they have no plans to change the attribution of authorship.

Case study 3

• Prior to this dispute, Dr Jones believed that he had a good working relationship with Dr Smith. As well as seeking advice on how to address the issue of authorship, he is also concerned how his career might be affected by the dispute with Dr Smith.

• How would you respond to Dr Jones?• What further information might you seek?• How might the situation be resolved?