Do Corresponding Authors Take Responsibility for Their Work? A Covert Survey

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Volumn 473, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 729-735

  Teunis, Teun ^a   Nota, Sjoerd P F T ^a   Schwab, Joseph H ^a  

^a HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

E-MAIL; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; PUBLIC RELATIONS; STATISTICAL MODEL; WRITING;

AUTHORSHIP; COMMUNICATION; ELECTRONIC MAIL; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; JOURNAL IMPACT FACTOR; LOGISTIC MODELS;

EID: 84939880917     PISSN: 0009921X     EISSN: 15281132     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3868-3     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–533.
2. Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA. 1997;277:1224–1228.
3. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–89.
4. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–1474.
5. Leberg PL, Neigel JE. Enhancing the retrievability of population genetic survey data? An assessment of animal mitochondrial DNA studies. Evolution. 1999;53:1961–1965.
6. Menendez ME, Bot AG, Hageman MG, Neuhaus V, Mudgal CS, Ring D. Computerized adaptive testing of psychological factors: relation to upper-extremity disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e149.
7. Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712.
8. Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221.
9. Savage CJ, Vickers AJ. Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PloS One. 2009;4:e7078.
10. ®. Available at: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/. Accessed November 3, 2013.
11. Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials. 2005;2:209–217.
12. Teunis T, Nota SP, Hornicek FJ, Schwab JH, Lozano-Calderon SA. Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal humerus for tumor resection: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2245–2253.
13. Vasilevsky NA, Brush MH, Paddock H, Ponting L, Tripathy SJ, Larocca GM, Haendel MA. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;1:e148.
14. Vines TH, Albert AY, Andrew RL, Debarre F, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Moore JS, Renaut S, Rennison DJ. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Curr Biol. 2014;24:94–97.
15. Vines TH, Andrew RL, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Kane NC, Moore JS, Moyers BT, Renaut S, Rennison DJ, Veen T, Yeaman S. Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J. 2013;27:1304–1308.
16. Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PloS One. 2011;6:e26828.
17. Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am Psychol. 2006;61:726–728.
18. Wren JD, Grissom JE, Conway T. E-mail decay rates among corresponding authors in MEDLINE: the ability to communicate with and request materials from authors is being eroded by the expiration of e-mail addresses. EMBO Rep. 2006;7:122–127.