| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Berquist.Thomas{at}mayo.edu
"Because of this personal investment, and because of the implications for their careers, academics tend to concentrate on the credit they reap from publication. Perhaps for this reason, and the fact that there is increased competition for scarce funds, the average number of authors per article has risen steadily" [6].
Peer-reviewed publications constitute a critical piece of the academic portfolio when seeking academic promotion or appointment. The "publish or perish" mentality and rush to increase the number of peer-reviewed publications has led to a new culture and new techniques to increase the bibliography.
When authors submit a manuscript to AJR, each must sign a copyright transfer agreement. By doing so, authors are documenting that they provided a substantive contribution to the article and they are documenting originality along with other important factors listed on the copyright transfer form [1]. Our current rule limits the number of authors to seven for a given manuscript. Is this the appropriate number? For multi-institutional studies it may be too few. However, for single-institution manuscripts, it may be too many.
How big is the problem? In the July issue of AJR there were seven or more authors on 38% of the manuscripts. Also, we have been asked to add authors after manuscript submission and add authors following a request for manuscript revision. In addition, we have received requests from authors to be removed from a manuscript after it was already in process. Other issues we have encountered include forged signatures and transmittal of copyright forms from another journal when submitting manuscripts to AJR. These authorship trends raise the question of whether we need to have each author respond to specific questions when he or she signs the copyright transfer agreement. Will this remind them of their responsibility?
In the April Editor's Notebook, we reviewed the importance of reading the copyright transfer agreement [1]. This page (A7 in the print version of the journal) serves as a reminder of each author's responsibilities. By signing this form, the authors signify that they "have made substantive and specific intellectual contributions to this article and assume full responsibility for its content." Given the issues that we are encountering, we are concerned that the current configuration of the Transfer of Copyright Agreement, Conflict of Interest Acknowledgment, Certification of Coauthors, Exclusive Publication Statement, and Disclosure of Commercial Interest form may need to be revised.
How do other journals address the authorship responsibility issue? What guidelines are used and is there any consistency? It appears the American Journal of Roentgenology is not the only journal that struggles with these issues. Elizabeth Wager [2] recently reviewed authorship guidelines from 324 biomedical journals. She randomly selected the journals from the World Association of Medical Editors and Medline. The results suggest that medical publications are inconsistent at best. Forty-one percent of the journals (100/324) provided no guidance for authors; 29% used the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) guidelines. These are the guidelines used by AJR (www.icmje.org). Fourteen percent of the 324 journals asked that the authors approve the manuscript while a mere 9% required that each author describe his or her specific contribution [2].
We value the products our authors provide to our journal. However, the "author creep" and the "publish or perish" mentality, along with the online explosion of articles, force us to rethink the mechanisms we use to ensure that authors follow our guidelines. The guidelines, after all, are meant to safeguard the integrity of our journal, which redounds to the benefit of all of us. This is not a new dilemma. There are several excellent editorials discussing the significance and responsibilities of authorship [3–6]. This two-edged sword is based upon inconsistent guidelines and the fact that there is no uniform method used to determine the order of authorship. The ranking of coauthors is inconsistent from institution to institution. In some cases the second author serves as mentor to the first author. Some institutions list the mentor as the last coauthor [6]. Regardless of the methods used, all coauthors should provide substantive contributions to the manuscript. Substantive is clearly defined by the ICMJE as follows:
The one-line statement on the AJR copyright agreement (item 4) that "the authors have made substantive and specific intellectual contributions to this article and assume full responsibility for its content" seems not to be sufficient to remind authors of their responsibility. Do we need to provide a simple but effective additional reminder to authors or should we stay with our current approach? We have reviewed approaches used by several other journals and recommendations found in the American Medical Association's style manual. JAMA, for example, provides a one-page agreement that each author must sign. There are boxes that must be checked for author contributions, financial disclosure, etc. Using this approach would not be overly burdensome to authors and may be a better way of reminding them of their responsibilities. It would also direct the responsibility to each author instead of requiring just the first or corresponding author to confirm that the additional author was important.
How might this form look? To borrow from the JAMA authorship responsibility form, the AJR copyright transfer form might have the following boxes that must be checked by each author [6]:
Rennie and Flanagin [6] summarized clearly the authorship responsibility multiauthor manuscript problem in their JAMA article. "Because of this personal investment, and because of the implications for their careers, academics tend to concentrate on the credit they reap from publication. Perhaps for this reason, and the fact that there is increased competition for scarce funds, the average number of authors per article has risen steadily."
We invite you, our valued reviewers, readers, and authors, to send us your comments and suggestions regarding the proposed changes. I have been impressed with the thoughtful and considered remarks you have sent me about recent questions I've posed. With your ongoing participation, we can ensure the value and integrity of AJR for everyone.
 Top References |
|---|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. H. Berquist Publication in biomedical journals: an example-based tutorial series, part II: was i really an author? Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2010; 194(6): 1411 - 1412. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Berquist Journal publication ethics 201: culture in crisis? Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2010; 194(3): 553 - 553. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Berquist Peer Review and Biomedical Publications: We All Have the Same Issues Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2009; 193(5): 1199 - 1200. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. H. Berquist Authorship: Did I Really Contribute? Am. J. Roentgenol., October 1, 2009; 193(4): 915 - 916. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
