Skip to main content
NCBI home page
CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal logoLink to CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association Journal
. 1996 Oct 1;155(7):877–882.

Rating authors' contributions to collaborative research: the PICNIC survey of university departments of pediatrics. Pediatric Investigators' Collaborative Network on Infections in Canada.

H D Davies 1, J M Langley 1, D P Speert 1
PMCID: PMC1335447  PMID: 8837534

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To determine how department chairs in pediatrics rate involvement in medical research and to determine whether faculty deans' offices have written criteria for evaluating research activity when assessing candidates for promotion or tenure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey and telephone survey. SETTING: Canadian faculties of medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Chairs of the 16 Canadian university departments of pediatrics and deans' offices of the 16 university medical faculties. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Weight assigned by department chairs to contributions to published research according to author's research role and position in list of authors and the method of listing authors. RESULTS: Fifteen of 16 chairs responded. Twelve submitted a completed survey, two described their institutions' policies and one responded that the institution had no policy. Eleven reported that faculty members were permitted or requested to indicate research roles on curricula vitae. There was a consensus that all or principal investigators should be listed as authors and that citing the research group as collective author was insufficient. The contribution of first authors was rated highest for articles in which all or principal investigators were listed. The contribution of joint-principal investigators listed as first author was also given a high rating. In the case of collective authorship, the greatest contribution was credited to the principal investigator of the group. Participation of primary investigators in multicentre research was rated as having higher value than participation in single-centre research by seven respondents and as having equal value by four. Only one dean's office had explicit written criteria for evaluating authorship. CONCLUSIONS: Most departments of pediatrics and medical faculty dean's offices in Canadian universities have no criteria for assessing the type of contribution made to published research. In view of the trend to use multicentre settings for clinical trials, guidelines for weighting investigators' contributions are needed.

Full text

PDF
877

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Drenth J. P. Authorship inflation: a trend reversed. Lancet. 1995 May 13;345(8959):1242–1243. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92026-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Edwards G., Babor T. F., Raw M., Stockwell T. Playing fair: science, ethics and scientific journals. Addiction. 1995 Jan;90(1):3–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Fye W. B. Medical authorship: traditions, trends, and tribulations. Ann Intern Med. 1990 Aug 15;113(4):317–325. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-113-4-317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Goodman N. W. Survey of fulfillment of criteria for authorship in published medical research. BMJ. 1994 Dec 3;309(6967):1482–1482. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6967.1482. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Kassirer J. P., Angell M. On authorship and acknowledgments. N Engl J Med. 1991 Nov 21;325(21):1510–1512. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199111213252112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Laupacis A. Research by collaboration. Lancet. 1995 Apr 15;345(8955):938–938. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90695-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Lundberg G. D., Flanagin A. New requirements for authors: signed statements of authorship responsibility and financial disclosure. JAMA. 1989 Oct 13;262(14):2003–2004. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Mussurakis S. Coauthorship trends in the leading radiological journals. Acta Radiol. 1993 Jul;34(4):316–320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Oliver M. F. Al, or the anonymity of authorship. Lancet. 1995 Mar 18;345(8951):668–668. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)90864-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Onwude J. L., Staines A., Lilford R. J. Multiple author trend worst in medicine. BMJ. 1993 May 15;306(6888):1345–1345. doi: 10.1136/bmj.306.6888.1345. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ramsay Sarah. UK royal college responds to scientific fraud. Lancet. 1995 Jun 17;345(8964):1566–1566. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)91108-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Remington R. D. Problems of university-based scientists associated with clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979 May;25(5 Pt 2):662–665. doi: 10.1002/cpt1979255part2662. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Rennie D., Flanagin A. Authorship! Authorship! Guests, ghosts, grafters, and the two-sided coin. JAMA. 1994 Feb 9;271(6):469–471. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.6.469. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Smith J. Gift authorship: a poisoned chalice? BMJ. 1994 Dec 3;309(6967):1456–1457. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6967.1456. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Stossel T. P. Volume: papers and academic promotion. Ann Intern Med. 1987 Jan;106(1):146–149. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-106-1-146. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from CMAJ: Canadian Medical Association Journal are provided here courtesy of Canadian Medical Association

RESOURCES