首页> 外文期刊>JAMA: the Journal of the American Medical Association >Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms.
【24h】

Authorship criteria and disclosure of contributions: comparison of 3 general medical journals with different author contribution forms.

机译:作者标准和投稿披露:比较3种不同投稿形式的普通医学期刊。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

CONTEXT: A number of general medical journals and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) request authors to disclose their contributions. Little is known about the effect of journal policies on authors' disclosure of their contributions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of named authors who do not meet ICMJE criteria for authorship, according to their published contributions, in 3 medical journals with different contribution disclosure practices. DESIGN: Observational study of authors' contributions in research articles published in 2002 in Annals of Internal Medicine (n = 72), BMJ (n = 107), and JAMA (n = 81). BMJ asks authors to describe research contributions in their own words; Annals asks authors to choose from a list of coded contributions; and JAMA uses a structured checklist with instructions on contributions that qualify for ICMJE authorship criteria. Honorary authorship was defined as the lack of contribution from the first ICMJE criterion (study conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data) and/or second (drafting the article or critical revision for important intellectual content) ICMJE criterion. RESULTS: According to authors' published contributions, the number of honorary authors was highest in Annals (121/562 authors, 21.5%), followed by BMJ (46/482, 9.5%), and JAMA (3/641, 0.5%) (chi2(2) = 146.67, P<.001). The number of articles with honorary authors was 60% in Annals, 21% in BMJ, and 4% in JAMA. Honorary authors had fewer published contributions than authors who met ICMJE criteria and were positioned more toward the end of the byline. Honorary authors either lacked contributions for both ICMJE criteria (10% in Annals and 22% in BMJ) or contributions to the second ICMJE criterion (75% in Annals, 67% in BMJ, and 2 out of 3 in JAMA). CONCLUSIONS: General medical journals differed in prevalence of honorary authors according to published research contributions of named authors. Different authorship/contributorship policiesand procedures should be explored as a possible explanation for the differences in contributions disclosed by authors among these journals.
机译:背景:许多普通医学期刊和国际医学期刊编辑委员会(ICMJE)要求作者披露其贡献。关于期刊政策对作者披露其贡献的影响知之甚少。目的:根据发表的贡献,在3种采用不同贡献披露实践的医学期刊中,确定不符合ICMJE作者资格标准的具名作者的数量。设计:2002年发表在《内科学年鉴》(n = 72),《医学杂志》(n = 107)和《美国医学会》(n = 81)上的研究文章中作者贡献的观察性研究。 BMJ要求作者用自己的语言描述研究成果; Annals要求作者从编码贡献清单中进行选择;而JAMA使用结构化清单,列出符合ICMJE作者资格标准的稿件说明。荣誉作者被定义为缺乏第一项ICMJE标准(研究概念和设计,或数据的获取,或数据的分析和解释)和/或第二项(重要文章的草稿或重要修订)ICMJE标准的贡献。结果:根据作者发表的论文,名誉作者的数量最高,在《 Annals》(121/562作者,21.5%)中,其次是BMJ(46 / 482,9.5%)和JAMA(3 / 641,0.5%)。 (chi2(2)= 146.67,P <.001)。荣誉作者的文章数在《 Annals》中为60%,在BMJ中为21%,在JAMA中为4%。与符合ICMJE标准的名誉作者相比,名著的发表数量更少,而且更多地接近署名结尾。名誉作者要么对ICMJE标准都没有贡献(Annals中为10%,而BMJ中则为22%),或者对ICMJE第二标准(Annals中为75%,BMJ中为67%,JAMA中三分之二)都没有贡献。结论:根据知名作者发表的研究成果,普通医学期刊的名誉作者患病率有所不同。应该探索不同的作者/投稿政策和程序,以解释这些期刊中作者披露的投稿差异。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号