医学期刊论文作者署名状况及问题思考

目的调查研究医学期刊论文作者署名问题。方法选择《中国煤炭工业医学杂志》、《首都医科大学学报》、《中国健康心理学杂志》、《中国综合临床》、《全科医学临床与教育》和《中国医院统计》6种刊物2010年发表的3 156篇学术论著的9 429名署名作者进行研究;并对≥4名作者的988篇学术论文中的2 468名署名作者中进行问卷调查。结果每篇论文署名作者1～16名不等,平均3名作者;省级以上基金项目1 030项,署名865项,占84%;≥4名作者的学术论文的2 468名署名作者符合作者资格者1 086名,占44%;532名署名第一作者符合作者资格者475名,占89%;43名通讯作者符合作者资格者38名,占88%;532张收回问卷有53张问卷的署名作者均不具备作者资格,占6%。结论作者的《著作权法》和学术道德伦理意识不强,不重视署名问题;作者、志谢对象、著作权、著作权人、署名权、署名资格等基本概念模糊;作者署名功能异化,署名具有很大的随意性。     

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

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%) (²₂ = 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 policies and procedures should be explored as a possible explanation for the differences in contributions disclosed by authors among these journals.      

Ethics requirements and impact factor

Do all clinical research publications show strong application of ethics principles and respect for biomedical law? We examined, for the year 2009, the ethics requirements displayed on the website of 30 leading medical journals with an impact factor (IF) >10, and 30 others with an IF <10. We carried out a short study looking at the relationship between the IF of a journal and the ethics requirements in its instructions to authors. We show that the IF of a biomedical journal bears a direct relationship to its ethics requirements. Such results should improve the ethics requirements of all biomedical journals, especially those with low IF, so that they are internationally standardised to the higher standard required by journals with higher IF.     

医学研究报告规范在生物医学期刊中的采用情况及影响因素调查

目的　分析医学研究报告规范在生物医学期刊中的采用情况及影响因素,以期为有效采用医学研究报告规范、提高研究报告质量提供参考。方法　采用目的抽样法,抽取我国生物医学期刊的编辑人员216例为调查对象。于2017年10月—2018年2月,在检索查阅文献、专家咨询的基础上,结合研究目的自行设计调查问卷。问卷主要内容包括：期刊的基本情况、编辑人员的基本情况、期刊对医学研究报告规范的采用情况及影响因素等。共发放问卷216份,回收有效问卷198份,问卷的有效回收率为91.7%。结果　198本期刊中,采用医学研究报告规范的期刊有78本,采用率为39.4%;采用CONSORT声明的期刊78本（39.4%）,采用STROBE声明的期刊19本（9.6%）,采用STARD声明的期刊18本（9.1%）,采用PRISMA声明的期刊26本（13.1%）。不同数据库收录情况期刊的医学研究报告规范采用率、CONSORT声明采用率、PRISMA声明采用率比较,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,且核心期刊的采用率高于非核心期刊（P<0.016 7）。采用医学研究报告规范的78本期刊中,采用过程中遇到的主要问题/困惑为作者不能很好配合采用（66.7%,52/78）和要求严格、可能导致许多稿件无法发表而影响出版进度（64.1%,50/78）。在120本未采用医学研究报告规范的期刊中,未采用的主要可能原因为要求严格、可能导致许多稿件无法发表而影响出版进度（65.8%,79/120）和作者不能很好配合采用（55.8%,67/120）。结论　目前医学研究报告规范在生物医学期刊中的采用情况尚有待改善,核心期刊的采用率较非核心期刊高,影响期刊采用医学研究报告规范的主要因素为作者不能很好配合采用和要求严格可能导致很多稿件无法发表而影响出版进度。建议加强编辑人员和医学生医学研究报告规范的培训,以推动报告规范的采用,进一步提高医学研究报告的质量。     

Prevalence of Articles With Honorary Authors and Ghost Authors in Peer-Reviewed Medical Journals

Context.— Authorship in biomedical publications establishes accountability, responsibility, and credit. Misappropriation of authorship undermines the integrity of the authorship system, but accurate data on its prevalence are limited. Objectives.— To determine the prevalence of articles with honorary authors (named authors who have not met authorship criteria) and ghost authors (individuals not named as authors but who contributed substantially to the work) in peer-reviewed medical journals and to identify journal characteristics and article types associated with such authorship misappropriation. Design.— Mailed, self-administered, confidential survey. Participants.— A total of 809 corresponding authors (1179 surveyed, 69% response rate) of articles published in 1996 in 3 peer-reviewed, large-circulation general medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, and The New England Journal of Medicine) and 3 peer-reviewed, smaller-circulation journals that publish supplements (American Journal of Cardiology, American Journal of Medicine, and American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). Main Outcome Measures.— Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors, as reported by corresponding authors. Results.— Of the 809 articles, 492 were original research reports, 240 were reviews and articles not reporting original data, and 77 were editorials. A total of 156 articles (19%) had evidence of honorary authors (range, 11%-25% among journals); 93 articles (11%) had evidence of ghost authors (range, 7%-16% among journals); and 13 articles (2%) had evidence of both. The prevalence of articles with honorary authors was greater among review articles than research articles (odds ratio [OR], 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-2.6) but did not differ significantly between large-circulation and smaller-circulation journals (OR, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-2.03). Compared with similar-type articles in large-circulation journals, articles with ghost authors in smaller-circulation journals were more likely to be reviews (OR, 4.2; 95% CI, 1.5-13.5) and less likely to be research articles (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.27-0.88). Conclusion.— A substantial proportion of articles in peer-reviewed medical journals demonstrate evidence of honorary authors or ghost authors.      

Authorship policies of bioethics journals

Inappropriate authorship is a common problem in biomedical research and may be becoming one in bioethics, due to the increase in multiple authorship. This paper investigates the authorship policies of bioethics journals to determine whether they provide adequate guidance for researchers who submit articles for publication, which can help deter inappropriate authorship. It was found that 63.3% of bioethics journals provide no guidance on authorship; 36.7% provide guidance on which contributions merit authorship, 23.3% provide guidance on which contributions do not merit authorship, 23.3% require authors to take responsibility for their contributions or for the article as a whole, 20% provide guidance on which contributions merit an acknowledgement but not authorship, 6.7% require authors to describe their contributions, and only 3.3% distinguish between authorship in empirical and conceptual research. To provide authors with effective guidance and promote integrity in bioethics research, bioethics journals should adopt authorship policies that address several important topics, such as the qualifications for authorship, describing authorship contributions, taking responsibility for the research and the difference between authorship in empirical and conceptual research.     

Perceptions of authorship criteria: effects of student instruction and scientific experience

OBJECTIVE: To analyse medical students', graduate students' and doctors' and medical teachers' perceptions of research contributions as criteria for authorship in relation to the authorship criteria defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). DESIGN: Medical students with (n = 152) or without (n = 85) prior instruction on ICMJE criteria, graduate students/doctors (n = 125) and medical teachers (n = 112) rated the importance of 11 contributions as authorship qualifications. They also reported single contributions eligible for authorship, as well as acceptable combinations of two or three qualifying contributions. RESULTS: Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation and Drafting of article formed the most important cluster in all four groups. Students without prior instruction rated Critical revision and Final approval lower than the other three groups. "Final approval" was a part of the least important cluster in all groups except among students with instruction. CONCLUSIONS: Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation and Drafting of article were recognised as the most important of the ICMJE criteria by all participants. They can be considered independent of previous instruction or experience. Final approval and Critical revision should be actively taught as important authorship criteria to future scientists.     

Finding European bioethical literature: an evaluation of the leading abstracting and indexing services

OBJECTIVES: In this study the author aimed to provide information for researchers to help them with the selection of suitable databases for finding medical ethics literature. The quantity of medical ethical literature that is indexed in different existing electronic bibliographies was ascertained. METHOD: Using the international journal index Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, journals on medical ethics were identified. The electronic bibliographies indexing these journals were analysed. In an additional analysis documentalists indexing bioethical literature were asked to name European journals on medical ethics. The bibliographies indexing these journals were examined. RESULTS: Of 290 journals on medical ethics 173 were indexed in at least one bibliography. Current Contents showed the highest coverage with 66 (22.8%) journals indexed followed by MEDLINE (22.1%). By a combined search in the top ten bibliographies with the highest coverage, a maximum coverage of 45.2% of all journals could be reached. All the bibliographies showed a tendency to index more North American than European literature. This result was verified by the supplementary analysis of a sample of continental European journals. Here EMBASE covered the highest number of journals (20.6%) followed by the Russian Academy of Sciences Bibliographies (19.2%). CONCLUSION: A medical ethics literature search has to be carried out in several databases in order to reach an adequate collection of literature. The databases one wishes to combine should be carefully chosen. There seems to be a regional bias in the most popular databases, favouring North American periodicals compared with European literature on medical ethics.     

Supported and unsupported claims in medicinal drug advertisements in Indian medical journals

The study assessed 292 supported and unsupported claims in 102 medicinal drug advertisements across 15 Indian medical journals published in 2009. WHO ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion were applied. None of the advertisements satisfied all the WHO criteria. Safe prescribing information on major adverse drug reactions, contraindications and warnings was provided in only 19 advertisements. Of 292 drug claims, only 80 (27%) were supported with reference(s), of which only 7 (9%) claims were unambiguous, or well substantiated with references. 14 references quoted did not substantiate the claim and 15 constituted weak scientific evidence. Superlatives like "tested" "trusted" "guarantees success" and "matchless safety" were used without evidence to substantiate such claims. Stronger enforcement mechanisms are necessary to ensure reliable drug information in pharmaceutical advertisements.     

医学伦理视角下的SCI生物医学英语论文

通过实例,分析刊登在国际著名SCI医学期刊上的生物医学英语论文中常见的与医学伦理和科研道德相关问题,着力讨论生物医学英语论文写作过程中应注意的作者署名和贡献问题、材料与方法部分所涉及人体或动物为研究受试体时的伦理问题、致谢辞的撰写、参考文献选取,有关利益冲突等问题,并进一步论述了上述问题的相关处理方法。     

Authorship ignorance: views of researchers in French clinical settings

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and behaviour of researchers regarding criteria for authorship, and the practices of ghost and gift authorship. DESIGN: Semidirective interviews of senior clinical researchers. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-nine main investigators of clinical research programmes.Main measurements: Awareness and use of International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship, and perceptions about ghost and gift authorship. RESULTS: A total of 48 protocols submitted by 42 principal investigators between 1994 and 1996 were identified. Thirty-nine investigators were contacted; 37 (one of whom delegated a co-author) were interviewed between May 2002 and March 2003. Two co-authors of two principal investigators were also interviewed. In all, 42 studies were represented. The interviews lasted for 40-90 minutes and were conducted with openness and respect for confidentiality.The choice of names of co-authors did not follow the ICMJE recommendations. Half of the respondents stated they were aware of criteria for authorship and knew of ICMJE, but most of them did not cite any of the ICMJE criteria among those they applied in deciding authorship. Most of them disagreed with the obligation to meet the three criteria justifying co-authorship because they found these too rigid and inapplicable. Gift authorship was a common practice; 59% of the respondents had been a recipient of gift authorship. Twenty-five (64%) were aware of ghost authorship and the majority considered it questionable and blameworthy. CONCLUSIONS: The ICMJE criteria were ignored by clinicians at a university hospital. Ghost and gift authorship were frequent among them. There is a need for French guidelines for authorship to be prepared and implemented.     

Urgent Need to Improve the Quality of Case Report in Traditional Chinese Medicine: Assessment on Reporting Quality of 3,417 Cases

Objective

To survey the reporting quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) case reports published in recent years and understand the common problems. The assessment results would lay the foundation for the development of recommendations for case report in Chinese medicine.

Methods

This survey determined the reporting quality of cases with Chinese herbal decoction, Chinese proprietary medicine, acupuncture, moxibustion and other traditional therapies published in 20 core medical journals of China by searching the China Academic Journals Full-text Database from 2006 to 2010. Fifty survey items in 16 domains were used to determine the reporting quality. One point was assigned to each item (Yes=1 point; No=0 point), and total score was 50 points. The domain of treatment was assessed independently, ranging from 2 to 9 items for different TCM interventions.

Results

The total of 1,858 case reports, covering 3,417 cases were included to analyze from 13 out of 20 core medical journals of China. There were 74.8% of them did not identify the nature of study in title, while 73.9% did not comprise an abstract. Incomplete reporting was found in discussions/ comment, and only 38.9% had made recommendations or take-away messages. Figures and tables were infrequently used. Three cases cited the full names of patients, but without declaring that any consent was obtained. Over 90% reported the symptoms and signs of TCM, and characteristics on tongue and pulse, but less than 50% did mention other medical history and diagnostic rationale. More than 90% treatments of the included cases were herbal decoction, with clear reporting on the ingredients and dosages. However, the reporting rate of the dosages of each ingredient was just 48.4%. Almost none reported the quality control of crude herbs, manufacturers and lot numbers of herbal proprietary medicine. Besides, advices and precautions on diet, emotions and living were rare to be illustrated.

Conclusion

Systematic reporting recommendations are urged to develop for improving the contents and format of case reports in TCM.

     

Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional

When conducting health and medical research it is important to do the research ethically and to apply for prior ethical approval from the relevant authorities. The latter requirement is true for developed countries as well as developing countries. The authors argue that simply applying for research ethics approval from an institutional review board at a university based in a developed country is not enough to start a health research project in a developing country. The paper also suggests a number of reasons why researchers may fail to seek local research ethics permission in developing countries. The authors use a recent paper reporting research conducted in Nepal and published in an international journal as a case study to highlight the importance of being sensitive to local requirements regarding applying for and registering health and medical research.     

Current situation on the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals

Objective： The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials （CONSORT） statement has already proved to be an efficient standard for reporting quality of randomized controlled trials （RCTs）. However, most of the Chinese medical journals have not endorsed the CONSORT statement. The current situation about the reporting quality of RCTs in Chinese medical journals is still unclear. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the reporting quality of RCTs on papers published in 5 leading Chinese medical journals. Methods： We evaluated 232 original RCT papers using a reporting quality scale based on CONSORT statement from 2001 to 2006 in 5 Chinese medical journals （Journal type 1） without adoption of CONSORT and Chinese Journal of Evidence-based Medicine （Journal type 2） which adopted CONSORT in 2004. We measured the inclusion of 26 items for the reporting quality scale and 6 core items of each RCT report, gave score to each item and calculated the total score obtained in each report and the proportion of reports including individual items. The reporting quality of RCT trials from 2001 to 2003 （pre-adoption period） was compared with that from 2004 to 2006 （post-adoption period）. Results： The average reporting quality of RCTs was moderate （mean score, 15.18）, and the mean score of the 6 core items was low （mean score, 1.09） in 5 leading journals. The difference in the total score and the score of the 6 core items between pre-adoption period （2001-2003） and post-adoption period （2004-2006） was statistically significant （P=0.003; P=0.000）. Interaction between journal type and period was not significant （F=0.76; P=0.383）. We concluded that the change tendency of reporting quality between Journal type 1 and 2 was not different. But as to the core items of sequence concealment and intention-to-treat analysis, the increases were greater for Journal type 2 when evaluated against Journal type 1 （P=0.038; P=0.016）. Conclusion： The reporting quality of RCT trials in 5 leading Chinese medical journals is improving. However, the lack of important items in RCT trials remains a serious problem. We recommend the endorsement of the Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials statement in Chinese medical journals and the continuing education on evidence-based medicine in China.     

Reporting of informed consent and ethics committee approval in clinical trials

Context  To determine whether journals have improved their disclosure of ethical protections in clinical trials. Methods  Comparison of clinical trials published before and after 1997 (July 1995 to December 1996 and January 1998 to June 1999) in Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA, The Lancet, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Sixty articles per journal per period were randomly selected and assessed for rate of reporting on informed consent and on ethics committee approval. Results  Informed consent was not described in 79 articles (26%) published before 1997 vs 53 (18%) published after 1997 (P = .01), and ethics committee approval was not mentioned in 93 (31%) before 1997 vs 54 (18%) after 1997 (P<.001). Neither protection was described in 48 articles (16%) published before 1997 vs 28 (9%) after 1997 (P = .01). In subgroup analyses, those journals with the worst initial rates generally improved the most. BMJ did not describe informed consent in 25 articles (42%) before 1997 vs 15 (25%) after 1997 (P = .05), and JAMA did not describe ethics committee approval in 25 (42%) before 1997 vs 13 (22%) after 1997 (P = .02). BMJ, JAMA, and Annals had the lowest initial rates of reporting on both protections in the same article, with 25 (42%), 32 (53%), and 34 (57%), respectively, but improved markedly to 38 (63%), 43 (72%), and 45 (75%) (P = .02, .04, and .03, respectively). Conclusions  Major medical journals have improved their reporting on informed consent and ethics committee approval; however, 9% of studies still report neither.      

我国1994年～2007年电子病案研究的文献计量学分析

目的通过对电子病案文献进行统计分析，以期了解国家或地区的电子病案研发和应用的情况。方法对1994年～2007年电子病案的文献分别从年代分布、期刊分布、作者分布等方面进行统计分析。结果电子病案的文献量从1994年的2篇上升到2007年的290篇。1465篇文献分布在392种期刊中，有6种核心区期刊。电子病案文献作者平均合作度2．33，合著率61．66％。核心作者58人（占作者总数的4．13％），发表论文359篇（占全部论文总数的25．6％）。结论国内对电子病案的研究呈上升趋势；电子病案的期刊分布不均，呈现核心分布；电子病案论文的新作者较多，相对缺少学术带头人和骨干力量，没有“专家”。     

Views regarding the training of ethics consultants: a survey of physicians caring for patients in ICU

BACKGROUND: Despite the expansion of ethics consultation services, questions remain about the aims of clinical ethics consultation, its methods and the expertise of those who provide such services. OBJECTIVE: To describe physicians' expectations regarding the training and skills necessary for ethics consultants to contribute effectively to the care of patients in intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN: Mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians responsible for the care of at least 10 patients in ICU over a 6-month period at a 921-bed private teaching hospital with an established ethics consultation service. 69 of 92 (75%) eligible physicians responded. Measurements: Importance of specialised knowledge and skills for ethics consultants contributing to the care of patients in ICU; need for advanced disciplinary training; expectations regarding formal-training programmes for ethics consultants. RESULTS: Expertise in ethics was described most often as important for ethics consultants taking part in the care of patients in ICU, compared with expertise in law (p<0.03), religious traditions (p<0.001), medicine (p<0.001) and conflict-mediation techniques (p<0.001). When asked about the formal training consultants should possess, however, physicians involved in the care of patients in ICU most often identified advanced medical training as important. CONCLUSIONS: Although many physicians caring for patients in ICU believe ethics consultants must possess non-medical expertise in ethics and law if they are to contribute effectively to patient care, these physicians place a very high value on medical training as well, suggesting a "medicine plus one" view of the training of an ideal ethics consultant. As ethics consultation services expand, clear expectations regarding the training of ethics consultants should be established.