Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship (Papers: Edsel B Ing | September 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Research Integrity on November 30, 2021
Keywords: Authorship, Collaborative research, Journal, Research integrity, Research results, Researcher responsibilities

The Linked Original Item was Posted On September, 15 2021 01:15:32

A word cloud around the concept of 'authorship'.

Background:
Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor–mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 medical journals. However, the binary ICMJEc have not yet been quantified.

Aim:
To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims.

An interesting analysis and paper that explores the authorship factors beyond purely the criteria in international codes. Some of the results are quite surprising.  Does your institution’s authorship material give guidance on “taking responsibility for an output”?  This work suggests it should.  We have included links to 21 related items.

Methods: 
The four ICMJEc were separated into the nine authorship components of conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation of data, draft, revision, final approval and accountability. In spring 2021, members of an international association of medical editors rated the importance of each authorship component using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no importance) to 10 (most important). The median component scores were used to calibrate the pairwise comparisons in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP priority weights were multiplied against a four-level perceived effort/capability grade to calculate an authorship score.

Results:
Sixty-six decision-making medical editors completed the survey. The components had the median scores/AHP weights: conception 7.5/5.3%; design 8/8.9%; data acquisition 7/3.6%; data analysis 7/3.6%; interpretation of data 8/8.9%; draft 8/8.9%; revision 8/8.9%; final approval 9/20.1%; and accountability 10/31.8%, with Kruskal–Wallis Chi2 = 65.11, p < 0.001.

Conclusion:
The editors rated accountability as the most important component of authorship, followed by the final approval of the manuscript; data acquisition had the lowest median importance score for authorship. The scoring rubric (https://tinyurl.com/eyu86y96) transforms the binary tetrad ICMJEc into 9 quantifiable components of authorship, providing a transparent method to objectively assess authorship contributions, determine authorship order and potentially decrease the abuse of authorship. If desired, individual journals can survey their editorial boards and use the AHP method to derive customized weightings for an ICMJEc-based authorship index.

Keywords:
authorship, ICMJE, academic medicine, ethics, medical editors, analytic hierarchy process, survey

Ing EB. (2021) A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship. Advances in Medical Education and Practice. 2021;12:1021-1031.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S328648
Publisher (Open Access): https://www.dovepress.com/a-survey-weighted-analytic-hierarchy-process-to-quantify-authorship-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-AMEP

Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship | AMEP
Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor-mentee relationship.

Aim: To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims.

Related Reading

(Africa) ‘Authorship parasitism’ informed by neo-colonial science? – University World News (Francis Kokutse | November 2021)

Reliability of researcher metric the h-index is in decline – Chemistry World (Jamie Durrani | July 2021)

Don’t make early career researchers ‘ghost authors.’ Give us the credit we deserve – Science (Karishma Bisht | September 2021)

How to navigate authorship of scientific manuscripts – Science (Elisabeth Pain | May 2021)

The authorship rows that sour scientific collaborations – Nature (Nic Fleming | June 2021)

A simple guide to ethical co-authorship – London School of Economics Impact Blog (Dr Helen Kara | March 2021)

Unconsented acknowledgments as a form of authorship abuse: What can be done about it? (Papers: Mladen Koljatic | August 2020)

CRediT Check – Should we welcome tools to differentiate the contributions made to academic papers? – LSE Blog (Elizabeth Gadd | January 2020)

Honesty in authorship. Who’s on first? – Hindawi (Eva Amsen | January 2020)

We Need to Talk About Authorship Abuse – Inside Higher Ed (A. Susan Jurow and Jordan Jurow | September 2019)

Farewell authors, hello contributors – Nature (Alex Holcombe | July 2019)

Recognizing Contributions and Giving Credit – EOS Editors’ Vox (Brooks Hanson and Susan Webb | August 2018)

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration (Papers: Zen Faulkes | 2018)

What does it mean to “take responsibility for” a paper? – Scientist Sees Squirrel (Stephen Heard | July 2018)

How to counter undeserving authorship (Papers: Stefan Eriksson, et al)

Authorship wars: academics outline the rules for recognition – THE (Holly Else | November 2017)

Percentage-based Author Contribution Index: a universal measure of author contribution to scientific articles (Papers: Stéphane Boyer, et al | 2017)

Authorship for sale: Some journals willing to add authors to papers they didn’t write – Retraction Watch (Alison McCook | September 2017)

Neutralising fair credit: factors that influence unethical authorship practices (Brad S Trinkle et al 2017)

When it takes a village to write a paper, what does it mean to be an author? – Retraction Watch commentary (Alison McCook 2016)

Authorship abuse is the dark side of collaboration – Times Higher Education (Bruce Macfarlane 2015)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in