© 2008 European Society of Cardiology
Who is an author?
Department of emergency and cardiovascular medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg University Sweden
Received May 7, 2008; Authorship of scientific papers is an important activity for the academic researcher, as papers provide a forum for communication of scientific results and can be used to provide references of scientific merit. Authors are responsible for the content of reports, and of course, the presentation of results should be as accurate and unbiased as possible. However, manuscripts can be written in a variety of ways using different words and expressions. In addition, each scientific author does not need to write every single word in the manuscript nor is he/she a novelist. The definition of scientific authorship is not clear-cut and is interpreted differently in various scientific communities.
This issue is far from new, and during my years I have seen several commentaries on this subject. Kassirer and Angell, Editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, discussed the issue of authorship in an Editorial published in 1991. I consider this Editorial important as it emphasizes the importance of scientific input and the need to define the contribution of an author particularly in multicenter trials [1]. In order to define roles more clearly, Rennie et al. suggested using "contributors" as a more appropriate designation for some authors [2]. The scientific paper when published is open for discussion, and all authors should be able to provide input of scientific value.
All submissions to the European Journal of Heart Failure must include a statement about the role of each author and a signed document defining each author's contribution. This requirement was implemented as a consequence of several reports of papers being published without the knowledge of some of the co-authors. An example is the Sudbo paper, published in the Lancet in 2005, in which several of the 13 co-authors claimed that they were not aware of the submission or the full result [3].
The European Journal of Heart Failure complies with the definitions of authorship as outlined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors which is available online at: http://www.icmje.org. We have no further requirement more than an author should have made a scientific contribution. In our May issue, we published an Ethics statement from the HEART network [4]. In this statement, we repeat what we have stated on our website since June last year. The purpose of the statement is to ensure transparency and honesty in the scientific process, and to promote ethical conduct in the performance and publication of research. Regarding authorship, the Ethics statement specifies that we need to create uniform criteria to establish authorship. To qualify for authorship, individuals must have made substantial contributions to the intellectual content of the paper in at least one of the following areas:
- conceived and designed the research
- acquired the data
- analyzed and interpreted the data
- performed statistical analysis
- handled funding and supervision
- drafted the manuscript or made critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content.
All authors must give final approval of the submitted manuscript and any revised version to be published. For multicenter trials, individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript should meet the criteria for authorship as previously defined; contributors who do not meet these criteria should be included in the Acknowledgements.
The discussion on authorship has recently been high-lighted in two studies and one Editorial published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Psaty and Kronmal reviewed documents that became available during litigation related to rofecoxib involving Merck & Co, including internal company analyses and information provided by the sponsor to the FDA [5]. They concluded that additional protection for human research participants, including new approaches for the conduct, oversight, and reporting of industry sponsored trials, are necessary. In another study, Ross et al. reviewed documents related to rofecoxib and found that they were authored by sponsor employees but often attributed first authorship to academically affiliated investigators who did not always disclose industry financial support [6]. Review manuscripts were often prepared by unacknowledged authors and authorship was subsequently attributed to academically affiliated investigators who often did not disclose industry financial support. In an accompanying Editorial, Editor-in-Chief Catherine DeAngelis and Deputy Editor Phil Fontanarosa suggested a number of actions in order to improve the situation regarding authorship of manuscripts related to industry sponsored trials [7]. While we believe that many of these actions are already in effect and most authors comply with these standards, there is obviously a need for all authors to consider these concerns and where appropriate, discuss them within their research environment. If authorship has uncertain ethical standards confidence will be lost, but if applied accurately, research will prevail.
 |
References |
|---|
 Top References |
|---|
- Kassirer J.P., Angell M. On authorship and acknowledgments [editorial]. N Engl J Med (1991) 325:1510–1512.[Web of Science][Medline]
- Rennie D., Yank V., Emanuel L. When authorship fails. A proposal to make contributors accountable. JAMA (1997) 278:579–585.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Sudbo J., Lee J.J., Lippman S.M., et al. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and the risk of oral cancer: a nested case-control study. Lancet (2005) 366:1359–1366.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- A statement on ethics from the HEART group. Eur J Heart Fail (2008) 10:437–438.
[Free Full Text] - Psaty B.M., Kronmal R.A. Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA (2008) 299:1813–1817.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Ross J.S., Hill K.P., Egilman D.S., Krumholz H.M. Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA (2008) 299:1800–1812.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - DeAngelis C.D., Fontanarosa P.B. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA (2008) 299:1833–1835.
[Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||