medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8559 (Electronic)
ISSN 1405-0625 (Print)

2014, Number 2

<< Back Next >>

Cir Plast 2014; 24 (2)

Recommendations to recognize credit from the authors and avoiding the multiple and unjustified authorship

Cuenca-Pardo JA, Álvarez-Díaz CJ

Language: Spanish
References: 25
Page: 69-74
PDF size: 350.93 Kb.


ABSTRACT

There is a marked world trend towards multiple authorship; several factors justify this phenomenon: technological progress, scientific complexity and team research. There is failure to comply with the norms publication; the most frequent are multiple and unjustified authorship. To avoid this problem it is necessary to give the corresponding credits to the participants who really deserve it. Even though several recommendations prevail to distinguish an author; sufficient bases are non-existent for the just allocation of credits; the sequence in which the names must appear, nor the responsibility of writing and its quality. Most of the journals and readers have considered the first author, as the principal person in charge; the second to the last of the list, are considered, less important. The best way to solve the distribution of credits is to follow the recommendations of the International Committee of Editors of Medical Journals, but principally, of the ethical responsibility of the authors, that allows a healthy conciliation before sending the manuscript in for publication. It is necessary to hand in a letter for copyright transfer, and a letter indicating the exact participation of each of the participants. Some journals, specify the participation of each of the authors in the publication. The utilization of a matrix to identify and to quantify the participation of the authors will help the participants and the editors decide the credits and the readers to recognize the honesty and the participation of the authors.


REFERENCES

  1. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Br Med J. 1979; 1: 532-535.

  2. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals. Reg Anesth. 1991; 16 (3): 181-185.

  3. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA. 1993; 269 (17): 2282-2286.

  4. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. CMAJ. 1994; 150 (2): 147-54, 159-167.

  5. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. JAMA. 1997; 277 (11): 927-934.

  6. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. 1999; 33 (1): 66-78.

  7. International Committee of Medical Journals Editors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals: writing and editing for biomedical publication. 2003; 44 (6): 770-783.

  8. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication Updated October 2008. www.ICMJE.org

  9. International Committee of Medical Editors. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication Updated April 2010. www.ICMJE.org.

  10. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: General principles. Preparing for submission Updated may 2014. www.ICMJE.org

  11. García AM. Nueva versión de los “Requisitos de uniformidad para los manuscritos enviados a revistas biomédicas y de ciencias de la salud”. Gac Sanit. 2004; 18 (3): 163-165.

  12. Smith E, Williams-Jones B. Authorship and responsibility in health sciences research: a review of procedures for fairly allocating authorship in multi-author studies. Sci Eng Ethics. 2012; 18 (2): 199-212.

  13. Mussurakis S. Authorship ethics in the radiological sciences. Australas Radiol. 1994; 38 (1): 2-5.

  14. Casas-Martínez M de L. Credit problems on scientific article authorships: some solutions. Rev Med Inst Mex Seguro Soc. 2008; 46 (4): 459-463.

  15. Mandal J, Chandra-Parija S. Ethics of authorship in scientific publications. Trop Parasitol. 2013; 3 (2): 105-105.

  16. Silva GA. La autoría múltiple y la autoría injustificada en los artículos científicos. Bol San Panam. 1990; 1 (2): 84-90.

  17. Huth EJ. Authorship from the reader’s side [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 1982; 97: 613-614.

  18. Burman KD. “Hanging from the masthead”: reflections on authorship. Ann Int Med. 1982; 97: 602-605.

  19. Feliu E. Confidencias de un redactor de una revista biomédica. La experiencia de Medicina Clínica. Med Clin (Barc). 1995; 104: 271-275.

  20. Silva HD, Llanes CR, Rodríguez SA. Manifestaciones impropias en la publicación científica. Rev Cubana Salud Pública. 2007; 33(4) versión on-line.

  21. Huth EJ. Irresponsible authorship and wasteful publication. Ann Int Med. 1986; 104: 257-259.

  22. Fotion N, Conrad CC. Authorship and other credits. Ann Int Med. 1984; 100: 592-594.

  23. Collier R. Prevalence of ghostwriting spurs calls for transparency. CMAJ. 2009; 181 (8): E161-E162.

  24. Prabhakar TC. Authorship matrix: a rational approach to quantify individual contributions and responsibilities. SCI Eng Ethics. 2014; 20: 345-361.

  25. Huth EJ. Guidelines on authorship of medical papers. Ann Intern Med. 1986; 104: 269-274.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com