OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship. DESIGN: Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers. SETTING: University medical faculty. SUBJECTS: 66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems. RESULTS: 50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%). CONCLUSION: There seems to be a gap between editors' criteria for authorship and researchers' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.
OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship. DESIGN: Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers. SETTING: University medical faculty. SUBJECTS: 66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems. RESULTS: 50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%). CONCLUSION: There seems to be a gap between editors' criteria for authorship and researchers' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors; University of Newcastle