Table 5.
Proposed Content for “Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship”
| Topic (Subtopics indented) | Percentage of panelists rating item as “important” or “very important” (Mean score) |
|
|---|---|---|
| Teaching | Assessing | |
| 1. The significance of authorship | 91* (3.45) | 55 (2.64) |
| a. The benefits of publishing | 40 (2.70) | N/A† |
| b. The problems of inappropriate authorship for legitimate authors, illegitimate authors, and science |
91* (3.45) | 73* (3.00) |
| 2. Authorship assignment | 91* (3.36) | 64 (2.73) |
| a. Authorship criteria | 91* (3.55) | 64 (2.91) |
| i. Substantial intellectual contribution to study or text | 100* (3.64) | 73* (3.27) |
| ii. Familiarity with and approval of the final text | 82* (3.36) | 55 (2.91) |
| b. Ideal of transparent contributions | 73* (3.00) | 45 (2.45) |
| c. Multiple authors: how to determine senior/first author | 82* (3.36) | 55 (2.73) |
| d. Appropriateness of discussing authorship at outset of a project | 91* (3.64) | 64 (3.09) |
| e. Acknowledgments: purpose and examples (including faculty contributions to students work) |
90* (3.40) | 60 (2.90) |
| f. Variation of standards and norms across disciplines | 82* (3.00) | 45 (2.27) |
| 3. Inappropriate authorship practices | 73* (3.36) | 55 (3.00) |
| a. Ghost authorship | 64 (3.09) | 55 (2.73) |
| b. Forced or “courtesy” authorship, e.g., when students are asked to add authors for political reasons |
73* (3.27) | 55 (2.82) |
| 4. Dealing with controversies that arise in authorship | 82* (3.36) | 55 (2.73) |
| 5. Scientific responsibilities of authors | 91* (3.73) | 91* (3.36) |
| a. Disclosure of funding sources and other sources of potential bias | 100* (3.82) | 82* (3.36) |
| b. Specification of any deviations from standard scientific practices | 91* (3.55) | 82* (3.27) |
| c. Full and accurate description of methods, procedures and analytic techniques that allows repetition |
91* (3.64) | 82* (3.27) |
| d. Citation of relevant literature without bias | 100* (3.55) | 64 (3.00) |
| e. Duty to report findings accurately and completely, including reporting critical or negative findings (even if they are contrary to own research agenda) |
100* (3.73) | 82* (3.45) |
| 6. Poor publication practices | 91* (3.45) | 73* (2.18) |
| a. Plagiarism versus proper citation or paraphrasing | 100* (3.73) | 82* (3.45) |
| b. Delay in reporting for commercial reasons | 70* (2.80) | 60 (2.60) |
| c. Publication bias | 100* (3.36) | 64 (2.82) |
| d. Text recycling; overlapping publication; duplicate and salami publication | 100* (3.55) | 64 (2.82) |
| e. Quality standards | 91* (3.27) | 64 (2.73) |
| 7. Protecting privacy in publication | 60 (3.00) | N/A† |
| 8. Addressing compliance with ethical standards within articles (e.g., mentioning IRB or IACUC approval, and discussing ethically controversial elements of a study) |
100* (3.18) | 55 (2.64) |
| 9. Responsible disclosure of scientific information within the popular press | 60 (2.60) | N/A† |
Legend:
*
Item achieved a “consensus” by receiving a rating of important or very important from two-thirds of panelists
†
Not applicable because these items were eliminated after round 2 and their importance of being assessed was not measured