Survey of "instructions to authors" of Indian medical journals for reporting of ethics and authorship criteria

This study looked at information on ethics reporting and authorship in the "instructions to authors" section of Indian medical journals. Instructions to authors in 59 Indian medical journals were examined for guidance on ethics reporting and authorship. Guidance regarding ethics was mentioned in 43 (72.8%) journals; assent from minors was mentioned in 9 (15.2%) journals; approval from an animal ethics committee was mentioned in 10 (16.9%) journals; authorship criteria were mentioned in 38 (64.5%) journals. Authorship criteria according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors were mentioned in 35 (59.3%) journals. Guidance regarding contributors' details was mentioned in 30 (50.8%) journals. These findings suggest that many editors of Indian medical journals must upgrade their instructions to authors to include ethical requirements.     

Empirical research in bioethical journals. A quantitative analysis

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this research is to analyse the evolution and nature of published empirical research in the fields of medical ethics and bioethics. DESIGN: Retrospective quantitative study of nine peer reviewed journals in the field of bioethics and medical ethics (Bioethics, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, Hastings Center Report, Journal of Clinical Ethics, Journal of Medical Ethics, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, Nursing Ethics, Christian Bioethics, and Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics). RESULTS: In total, 4029 articles published between 1990 and 2003 were retrieved from the journals studied. Over this period, 435 (10.8%) studies used an empirical design. The highest percentage of empirical research articles appeared in Nursing Ethics (n = 145, 39.5%), followed by the Journal of Medical Ethics (n = 128, 16.8%) and the Journal of Clinical Ethics (n = 93, 15.4%). These three journals account for 84.1% of all empirical research in bioethics published in this period. The results of the chi2 test for two independent samples for the entire dataset indicate that the period 1997-2003 presented a higher number of empirical studies (n = 309) than did the period 1990-1996 (n = 126). This increase is statistically significant (chi2 = 49.0264, p < .0001). Most empirical studies employed a quantitative paradigm (64.6%, n = 281). The main topic of research was prolongation of life and euthanasia (n = 68). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the proportion of empirical research in the nine journals increased steadily from 5.4% in 1990 to 15.4% in 2003. It is likely that the importance of empirical methods in medical ethics and bioethics will continue to increase.     

Ensuring integrity in biomedical publication

The author discusses the role of the editors of scientific journals in ensuring the high quality and integrity of the research they publish. Woolf urges editorial leadership in such areas as defining and enforcing standards for responsible authorship; establishing policies for data retention and availability, for handling allegations of fraud, and for publishing retractions; and enforcing peer review. She concludes that editors can be instrumental in alerting authors to questionable data and research practices.     

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.      

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。     

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

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.     

Authorship of research papers: ethical and professional issues for short-term researchers

Although the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has published clear guidance on the authorship of scientific papers, short-term contract research workers, who perform much of the research that is reported in the biomedical literature, are often at a disadvantage in terms of recognition, reward and career progression. This article identifies several professional, ethical and operational issues associated with the assignment of authorship, describes how a university department of primary care set about identifying and responding to the concerns of its contract research staff on authorship and describes a set of guidelines that were produced to deal with the ethical and professional issues raised. These guidelines include directions on how authorship should be negotiated and allocated and how short-term researchers can begin to develop as authors. They also deal with the structures required to support an equitable system, which deals with the needs of short-term researchers in ways that are realistic in the increasingly competitive world of research funding and publication, and may offer a model for more formal guidelines that could form part of institutional research policy.     

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.      

Responsibility for health: personal, social, and environmental

Most of the discussion in bioethics and health policy concerning social responsibility for health has focused on society's obligation to provide access to healthcare. While ensuring access to healthcare is an important social responsibility, societies can promote health in many other ways, such as through sanitation, pollution control, food and drug safety, health education, disease surveillance, urban planning and occupational health. Greater attention should be paid to strategies for health promotion other than access to healthcare, such as environmental and public health and health research.     

Strategic management of technostress

The article proposes the concept of technostress and makes a strong recommendation for conducting research based on key researchable hypotheses. A conceptual framework of technostress is suggested to provide some focus to future research. A number of technostress management strategies are put forward, including strategic technological planning, organization culture development, technostress monitoring systems, and technouser self-development programs. The management of technostress is compared to the chaining of Prometheus, which, left uncontrolled, can create havoc in an organization. The authors believe that organizations have a responsibility to introduce, diffuse, and manage computer technology in such a way that it is congruent with the principles of sound, supportive, and humanistic management.     

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。     

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.     

Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews

Context  To determine the prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews, how authorship is assigned, and the ways in which authors and Cochrane editorial teams contribute. Methods  Using a Web-based, self-administered survey, corresponding authors for 577 reviews published in issues 1 and 2 from 1999 of The Cochrane Library were invited to report on the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors, contributions by authors listed in the byline and members of Cochrane editorial teams, and identification of methods of assigning authorship. Responses were received for 362 reviews (63% response rate), which contained 913 authors. Results  One hundred forty-one reviews (39%) had evidence of honorary authors, 32 (9%) had evidence of ghost authors (most commonly a member of the Cochrane editorial team), and 9 (2%) had evidence of both honorary and ghost authors. The editorial teams contributed in a wide variety of ways to 301 reviews (83%). Authorship was decided by the group of authors (31%) or lead author (25%) in most reviews. Authorship order was assigned according to contribution in most reviews (76%). The 3 functions contributed to most by those listed in the byline were assessing the quality of included studies (83%), interpreting data (82%), and abstracting data from included studies (77%). Conclusions  A substantial proportion of reviews had evidence of honorary and ghost authorship. The Cochrane editorial teams contributed to most Cochrane reviews.      

中美生命伦理学比较研究之文献视角

针对中美两国生命伦理学共同关注的热点问题,利用CBMdisc和Medine数据库进行检索,通过对检索结果的比较分析,认为中美两国生命伦理学在研究切入点、文献分布、文化差异导致的价值观差异以及宗教影响等方面呈现出不同的研究特色,并对其原因进行了初步的探索。同时认为两国的研究仍然存在着相同的方面,这也是对中美两国生命伦理学进行比较研究的基础。     

Deciding for imperilled newborns: medical authority or parental autonomy?

The ethical issues around decision making on behalf of infants have been illuminated by two empirical research studies carried out in Scotland. In-depth interviews with 176 medical and nursing staff and with 108 parents of babies for whom there was discussion of treatment withholding/withdrawal, generated a wealth of data on both the decision making process and the management of cases. Both staff and parents believe that parents should be involved in treatment limitation decisions on behalf of their babies. However, whilst many doctors and nurses consider the ultimate responsibility too great for families to carry, the majority of parents wish to be the final arbiters. We offer explanations for the differences in perception found in the two groups. The results of these empirical studies provide both aids to ethical reflection and guidance for clinicians dealing with these vulnerable families. They demonstrate the value of empirical data in the philosophical debate.     

Moral experience: a framework for bioethics research

Theoretical and empirical research in bioethics frequently focuses on ethical dilemmas or problems. This paper draws on anthropological and phenomenological sources to develop an alternative framework for bioethical enquiry that allows examination of a broader range of how the moral is experienced in the everyday lives of individuals and groups. Our account of moral experience is subjective and hermeneutic. We define moral experience as "Encompassing a person's sense that values that he or she deem important are being realised or thwarted in everyday life. This includes a person's interpretations of a lived encounter, or a set of lived encounters, that fall on spectrums of right-wrong, good-bad or just-unjust". In our conceptualisation, moral experience is not limited to situations that are heavily freighted with ethically-troubling ramifications or are sources of debate and disagreement. Important aspects of moral experience are played out in mundane and everyday settings. Moral experience provides a research framework, the scope of which extends beyond the evaluation of ethical dilemmas, processes of moral justification and decision-making, and moral distress. This broad research focus is consistent with views expressed by commentators within and beyond bioethics who have called for deeper and more sustained attention in bioethics scholarship to a wider set of concerns, experiences and issues that better captures what is ethically at stake for individuals and communities. In this paper we present our conceptualisation of moral experience, articulate its epistemological and ontological foundations and discuss opportunities for empirical bioethics research using this framework.     

临床生命伦理分析的经验主义视角

在当今国际世界,生命伦理学已从20世纪中叶问世的新学科发展成一种国际性的“社会运动”。在临床生命伦理学实践中,西方学者最为关心的是临床生命伦理分析的方法论问题,简要地介绍分析当代欧洲临床生命伦理分析的经验主义视角,探讨生命伦理学与自然主义之间的互动,借助当代主流伦理学的发展,回答临床生命伦理分析中的“是”与“应当”问题,以期对我国的临床生命伦理理论和实践的发展提供借鉴。     

An 'ethics gap' in writing about bioethics: a quantitative comparison of the medical and the surgical literature.

In order to determine whether there is a significant difference between the medical literature and the surgical literature in terms of their bioethics content, we conducted a computerized search of the MEDLINE database. The journals searched were selected from the 'Medicine' and 'Surgery' sections of the 'Brandon-Hill List', and the search was limited to 1992 issues of these journals. Three hundred and seven bioethics bibliographic records (out of a total of 11,239 articles indexed) were retrieved from the 15 medical journals searched, while 17 bioethics bibliographic records (out of a total of 2,645 articles indexed) were retrieved from the 12 surgical journals searched. We conclude that there is a statistically significant (p < 0.001) difference between the medical literature and the surgical literature with respect to their quantitative bioethics content.