Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 115, Issue 11, 2018, Pages 2557-2560

  McNutt, Marcia K ^a   Bradford, Monica ^b,n   Drazen, Jeffrey M ^c   Hanson, Brooks ^d   Howard, Bob ^e   Jamieson, Kathleen Hall ^f   Kiermer, Véronique ^g   Marcus, Emilie ^h   Pope, Barbara Kline ^i,o   Schekman, Randy ^j,k   Swaminathan, Sowmya ^l   Stang, Peter J ^m   Verma, Inder M ⁿ  

^a NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES   (United States)

^b AAAS   (United States)

^c New England Journal of Medicine   (United States)

^d AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION   (United States)

^e Sage Publishing   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^g PLOS ^*  (United States)

^h Cell Press   (United States)

ⁱ NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCES   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^k eLife   (United Kingdom)

^l Nature   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF UTAH   (United States)

ⁿ SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES   (United States)

^o JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Authorship principles; Research transparency; Scientific integrity

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FUNDING; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRODUCTIVITY; PUBLICATION; RESPONSIBILITY; WRITING;

EID: 85043782103     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1715374115     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. Pennock RT (1996) Inappropriate authorship in collaborative science research. Public Aff Q 10:379–393.
2. Rennie D, Flanagin A (1994) Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA 271:469–471.
3. Ghan S, et al. (2016) Author contributions can be clarified. J Geophys Res D Atmospheres 121:8155.
4. Bošnjak L, Marušić A (2012) Prescribed practices of authorship: Review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines. Scientometrics 93:751–763.
5. Laurance WF (2006) Second thoughts on who goes where in author lists. Nature 442:26.
6. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2017) Fostering Integrity in Research (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
7. Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Deangelis CD (2011) Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: A cross sectional survey. BMJ 343:d6128.
8. Al-Herz W, Haider H, Al-Bahhar M, Sadeq A (2014) Honorary authorship in biomedical journals: How common is it and why does it exist? J Med Ethics 40:346–348.
9. Brand A, Allen L, Altman M, Hlava M, Scott J (2015) Beyond authorship: Attribution, contribution, collaboration, and credit. Learn Publ 28:151–155.
10. Sauermann H, Haeussler C (2017) Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci Adv 3:e1700404.
11. + stem cells in primary and metastatic colon cancer. Nature 543:676–680.
12. Marušić A, et al. (2014) Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications. BMC Med 12:197.
13. Expert Group on Altmetrics (2017) Next-Generation Metrics: Responsible Metrics and Evaluation for Open Science (European Commission, Brussels). Available at https://ec.europa.eu/research/openscience/index.cfm?pg=altmetrics_eg. Accessed February 1, 2018.
14. Lauer M (2017) Teaming with ORCID to reduce burden and improve transparency. NIH Office of Extramural Research, Available at https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/11/15/teaming-with-orcid-to-reduce-burden-and-improve-transparency/. Accessed February 1, 2018.