Authorship in nursing science. Dr Stephen J. OConnor, PhD., MSc., - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Authorship in nursing science.

Dr Stephen J. O’Connor, PhD., MSc., Grad Dip Onc., BSc(Hons), FHEA, RN., Reader, Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Canterbury Christ Church University.

Grüße aus Canterbury!

The England Centre for Practice Development

https://www.canterbury.ac.uk/health-and-wellbeing/england-centre-for-practice- development/england-centre-for-practice-development.aspx

Why is authorship important?

• Attribution of authorship can vary dramatically among disciplines,

institutions, countries, and even between different teams or departments in the same discipline, institution or country (Amos, 2012)

• However, scientific authorship is a matter of public credit and

responsibility so…

• Only those who have met accepted criteria for authorship should

be included as authors

• This ensures:

– Clarity and transparency as to who is responsible for the work – Due credit for the person or persons who conducted the work – Who is responsible for any error or weakness in the work

Why is authorship important?

• Errors do sometimes occur in the reporting of scientific data and all

authors should take responsibility for whatever is published under their name

• Papers should provide an accurate, complete, clear, and unbiased

representation of a study, including the background, methods, the findings, and the significance of the work, including for these purposes, ‘fair assignment of authorship and credit’ (European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity, 2011)

• New publications should provide substantive new results or

analysis; and should not serve merely to increase the number of publications an author or authors’ have, otherwise they may fall into the trap of duplicate publication/salami slicing, or worse.

Why is authorship important?

• Many high profile cases of misconduct have been reported (Amos,

2012) including the notorious case of Diederik Stapel (Netherlands), and Hwang Woo-Suk (South Korea)

• Other unnamed researchers at Leiden University have been fired

and had papers withdrawn for research/publication misconduct

• This has led the United States, Canada, Sweden, Norway, and
• thers to create formal mechanisms for overseeing research and

publication conduct, but they are relatively ‘toothless’

• In most countries responsibility lies with individual institutions,

principal investigators, funding agencies and editors/peer reviewers, but oversight varies greatly, and it is unclear which systems are most effective and efficient.

Why is authorship important?

• The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity however,

makes clear that scientists should show ‘honesty in communication’, ‘openness and accessibility’, and ‘fairness in providing references and giving credit’ – including published manuscripts, and it is clear that many of the students damaged by the Stapel affair (and others) in Tilburg, Groningen and Amsterdam would have been safer had they shared their concerns and refused to co-author their work with him (and vice versa)

• Hence, control of authorship is not just about the protection of the

public, the maintenance of scientific integrity, or risk to academic institutions or journals, but also for the sake of those embarking research careers and working under other senior researchers.

What about academic (lateral) bullying?

‘Nothing strengthens authority as much as silence’ (Leonardo da Vinci) ‘All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing’ (Edmund Burke)

• Many authors (e.g. Fine and Kurdek, 1993; Manathunga, 2007;

Roscigno et al, 2009 etc.) have studied lateral/horizontal violence and bullying towards research students by their supervisors

• Demands for ‘guest authorship’ on papers which they did not write
• r contribute to in essential ways are clear evidence of this and

should be addressed wherever possible – but what does authorship mean?

What is authorship?

• The most common definition of authorship accepted by many

medical journals is that adopted by the International Committee

• f Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) in 2006.
• Under this definition, someone is an author if - and only if - they

have done all of the following: – made a substantial contribution to the conception and design,

• r the acquisition of data, or the analysis and interpretation of

that data; – been involved in drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and have also: – approved of the final version to be published.

What authorship is not according to the ICMJE

• The ICMJE definition specifically excludes authorship for:

– anyone whose contributions consist solely of arranging funding for the project – anyone whose contributions consist solely of collecting data – anyone whose contributions consist solely of supervising the researcher(s).

• The definition is useful because of its clarity, and is used widely;

but it is at odds with common practice in some countries/areas

• A slightly alternative model - The contributorship model - has

therefore been developed by the Council of Science Editors.

• This is also endorsed by the ICMJE – but use of this new model

needs to be in line with individual journal policy and/or editorial preference.

What does the ‘contributorship model’ say?

• The contributorship model places precedence on transparency and

honesty over rigid definitions of authorship

• Transparency is demonstrated by stating how (and how much)

individual authors contributed to the work in a number of ways

• The individual contributions of all authors must be clearly identified

to the journal at the time of submission, and these are published alongside the manuscript

• The 'contributorship' model is less restrictive than the ICMJE model

(Horton and Smith, 1996; Smith, 1997; Rennie et al., 2000; Authorship Task Force, 2000); and some medical journals now use this model.

Self policing of the authorship process

• Details of who did what are often known only to other authors
• However, all authors (including the most junior) are responsible for

policing the authorship process and ensuring that only those meeting the ICMJE criteria (or whose contribution has been properly described in the ‘contributorship model’) are listed as authors

• There is an ‘unmistakable obligation to act’ (National Academy of

Sciences, 2006)on the part of any author who knows that someone has wrongly claimed, or has been attributed with authorship as this is now classed as research misconduct

• There is still confusion how to act however, when such misconduct
• ccurs (Wenger et al., 1999).

The need for healthy scepticism

• Questions about the proper conduct of research should be asked

when there is any doubt about a paper and are to be encouraged, but this needs to be done tactfully

• Authors should not be surprised or affronted by requests for more

information by journal editors (it is part of their role!)

• It is a responsibility of all scientists to find the best and most

appropriate means to address concerns about the conduct of science, but when this cannot be achieved, there are alternative solutions such as the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)

• http://publicationethics.org/

The role of COPE

• The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) was established in

1997 and now has over 9,000 members worldwide

• Membership is open to editors of academic journals and others

interested in publication ethics

• COPE provides advice to editors, publishers and authors on all

aspects of publication ethics and research and publication misconduct

• COPE does not investigate individual cases but encourages editors

to ensure that cases are investigated by the appropriate authorities (usually a research institution or employer).

The role of COPE

• Most major publishers including Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer,

Taylor and Francis, Palgrave Macmillan, and Wolters Kluwer have encouraged journals to sign up to the COPE policies and guidelines

• COPE members are expected to follow the Code of Conduct for

Journal Editors

• COPE has online resources including modules on: An Introduction

to Publication Ethics, Plagiarism, and Authorship

• COPE also funds research into publication ethics, organises

seminars and has created an audit tool for members to measure compliance with its Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

The role of COPE

• The COPE website has a number of resources to help authors

identify solutions to such problems including a guide entitled ‘How to handle authorship disputes: a guide for new researchers’ by Tim Albert and Elizabeth Wager on: http://publicationethics.org/files/2003pdf12.pdf

• They also publish actual case-studies which have been discussed in

various meetings to help guide others in their decision making http://publicationethics.org/cases

• They also have a series of easy to follow flowcharts for editors

covering a number of scenarios http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts

Thank you for listening….

References

Amos, K.A. (2012) The ethics of scholarly publishing: exploring differences in plagiarism and duplicate publication across nations. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Apr;102(2):87-91. British Medical Journal (2012) Editorial: Research misconduct in the UK. BMJ 2012; 344 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d8357 (Published 04 January 2012). Fine, M. A., & Kurdek, L. A. (1993). Reflections on determining authorship credit and authorship order on faculty-student collaborations. American Psychologist, 48(11), 1141-1147. Healy, G. (2010). PhD students suffer from bullying supervisors. The Australian, 21 April

• 2010. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/phd-students-suffer-from-

bullying-supervisors/story-e6frgcjx-1225856125727. Kalichman MW, Friedman PJ (1992): A pilot study of biomedical trainees' perceptions concerning research ethics. Academic Medicine 67: 769-775. Manathunga, C. (2007). Supervision as mentoring: The role of power and boundary

• crossing. Studies in Continuing Education, 29(2):207-221.

Roscigno, V. J., Lopez, S. H., & Hodson, R. (2009). Supervisory bullying, status inequalities and organizational context. Social Forces, 87(3):1561-1589.

Martinson BC, Anderson MS, Crain AL, de Vries R (2006): Scientists' Perceptions of Organizational Justice and Self-Reported Misbehaviors. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 1:51-66. Morris, S. E. (2011) Doctoral Students’ Experiences of Supervisory Bullying. Pertanika J.

• Soc. Sci. & Hum. 19(2):547-555

National Science Foundation (2005) Section 689.1 Definitions. Part 689-- Research

• Misconduct. Subpart A—General. Chapter VI--National Science Foundation. Title 45--

Public Welfare. 45CFR689.1(a). http://www.nsf.gov/oig/resmisreg.pdf Public Health Service (2005) Section 93.103 Research misconduct. Part 93-- Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct. Subpart A—General. Chapter I--Public Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services. Title 42--Public Health. 42CFR93.103. http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_05/42cfr93_05.html Steneck N (2006): Fostering Integrity in Research: Definitions, Current Knowledge, and Future Directions. Science and Engineering Ethics (2006)12: 53-74. Tilburg University (2011) Interim report regarding the breach of scientific integrity committed by prof. D.A. Stapel. (PDF, 385KB) Tilburg University, 1-21. Wenger NS, Korenman SG, Berk R, Honghu L (1999): Reporting unethical research

• behavior. Evaluation Review 23: 553-570.

Suzanne E. Morris