DOCSLIB.ORG

Access Document

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Access Document BMJ Confidential: For Review Only Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross-sectional study of publications and survey of lead academic authors Journal: BMJ Manuscript ID BMJ.2018.044617 Article Type: Research BMJ Journal: BMJ Date Submitted by the Author: 17-Apr-2018 Complete List of Authors: Rasmussen, Kristine; Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Dept. 7811 Bero, Lisa; University of Sydney, Charles Perkins Centre / Pharmacy Redberg, Rita; University of California San Francisco, UCSF Division of Cardiology Gøtzsche, Peter; Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Dept. 7811 Lundh, Andreas; Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark industry, conflicts of interest, funding, academic, authorship, ghost Keywords: authorship https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj Page 1 of 42 BMJ 1 2 3 4 Collaboration between academics and industry in clinical trials: cross-sectional study of 5 publications and survey of lead academic authors 6 7 8 Word count: 3612 9 10 Kristine Rasmussen1 (researcher, MD, MSc), [email protected] 11 Confidential: For Review Only 12 Lisa Bero2 (professor, PhD), [email protected] 13 14 Rita Redberg3 (professor, MD, MSc, FACC), [email protected] 15 16 Peter C. Gøtzsche1 (professor, MD, DMSci), [email protected] 17 18 Andreas Lundh4 (senior researcher, MD, MSc, PhD), [email protected] 19 20 21 22 1 23 Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark 24 2 25 Charles Perkins Centre and Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Sydney, Australia 26 3 UCSF Division of Cardiology, 505 Parnassus Ave., Suite M-1180, San Francisco, California, USA 27 28 4 Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Odense University Hospital and University of Southern Denmark, 29 30 Odense, Denmark 31 32 33 34 § Contact information for corresponding author: Kristine Rasmussen Nordic Cochrane Centre, 35 36 Rigshospitalet Dept. 7811, Blegdamsvej 9, DK-2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark, 37 38 Phone: +45 35 45 7110, Fax: +45 35 45 7007, E-mail: [email protected] 39 40 41 42 Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form 43 at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the 44 45 submitted work; RFR is editor of JAMA Internal Medicine which is included in our sample of 46 journals, but RFR had no role in data extraction or analysis of the results; all authors declare no 47 48 financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in 49 the previous three years and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have 50 51 influenced the submitted work. 52 53 Funding: No external funding received. Study was financed by institutional salaries. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj BMJ Page 2 of 42 1 2 3 4 BOX: 5 6 Section 1: What is already known on this subject 7 8 The biomedical industry funds most clinical trials. Industry funders may influence how trials are 9 designed and reported, sometimes serving financial rather than public interest. 10 11 SectionConfidential: 2: What this study adds For Review Only 12 13 All aspects of the clinical trial were influenced by the industry funder in most industry-funded trials 14 in high impact medical journals. Lead academic authors involved in industry-funded trials found the 15 collaboration with the funder beneficial, but some reported loss of academic freedom. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj Page 3 of 42 BMJ 1 2 3 4 ABSTRACT 5 6 Word count: 291 7 8 Objective: To determine the role of academic authors, funders and contract research 9 organisations in industry-funded vaccine, drug and device trials, and to determine lead academic 10 11 authors’Confidential: experiences with industry funder collaborations.For Review Only 12 13 Design: Cross-sectional analysis of trial publications and survey of lead academic authors. 14 15 Eligibility criteria for selecting studies: We included the most recent 200 phase III and IV 16 17 vaccine, drug and device trials with full industry funding, at least one academic author, published in 18 one of the top seven high impact general medical journals (NEJM, Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Annals of 19 20 Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine). 21 22 Results: Employees of industry funders coauthored 173 (87%) of publications. We found 183 23 24 (92%) trials reported funder involvement in design and 167 (84%) academic author involvement. 25 Data analysis involved the funder in 146 (73%) trials and the academic authors in 79 (40%). Trial 26 27 reporting involved the funder in 173 (87%) trials and academic authors in 197 (99%). Contract 28 research organisations were involved in the reporting of 123 (62%) trials. 29 30 Eighty of 200 lead academic authors (40%) responded to the survey. Twenty-nine (33%) of the 80 31 32 responders reported that academics had final say on the design. Ten responders described 33 34 involvement of an unnamed funder and/or CRO employee in the data analysis and/or 35 reporting. Most academic authors found the collaboration with industry funder beneficial, but 3 36 37 (4%) experienced delay in publication due to the industry funder and 9 (11%) reported 38 disagreements with the industry funder mostly concerning trial design and reporting. 39 40 41 Conclusions: Industry employees and academic authors are involved in the design, conduct, and 42 reporting of most industry-funded trials in high impact journals. However, data analysis is often 43 44 conducted without academic involvement. Academics view the collaboration as beneficial, but 45 some report loss of academic freedom. 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj BMJ Page 4 of 42 1 2 3 4 INTRODUCTION 5 6 Collaboration between industry and academics is common in vaccine, drug and device 7 8 development, as it can be mutually beneficial. The academics provide access to trial participants 9 and clinical and methodological expertise, and industry provides funding and expertise. The degree 10 11 of independenceConfidential: and roles of academics and For industry Review varies across trials. OnlyTrials may be 12 completely run by academic trial units with unrestricted industry funding or solely provision of study 13 medication.1, 2 Alternatively, academics are involved in trials as honorary authors in order to give a 14 15 trial scientific credibility and downplay the role of industry funder.3, 4 16 17 Based on previous work and examples, collaboration between academics and industry may result 18 19 in commercial considerations outweighing science and constraints on academic freedom. For 20 example, previous studies have found some trial agreements permit funders to block publication.5-8 21 22 Furthermore, academics have reported problems with stalling of publications, restriction of 23 publication rights and threats to never fund their institution again due to reporting of negative 24 9 25 results or harms. A survey of Canadian trial investigators found problems in relation to industry 26 control over study design, data ownership, data access and analysis.10 27 28 Although most clinical drug and device trials are industry funded, the nature of the collaboration 29 30 between industry and academics has received little attention.11 Previous studies have addressed 31 the issue on a general level.5-10, 12 To our knowledge, no contemporary studies have surveyed the 32 33 role and practices of academics, industry, and contract research organisations (CROs) when 34 collaborating in clinical vaccine, drug or device trials. 35 36 37 38 39 Objective 40 41 • To determine the role of academic authors, funders and CROs in industry-funded vaccine, 42 43 drug and device trials. 44 • To determine lead academic authors’ experiences with industry funder collaborations. 45 46 47 48 METHODS 49 50 51 This study was in two parts: 1) a cross-sectional study of trial publications and 2) a survey of the 52 lead academic authors of the 200 most recent industry-funded vaccine, drug and device trials 53 published in one of the top seven high impact general medical journals. 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/bmj Page 5 of 42 BMJ 1 2 3 4 5 6 Cross-sectional Study 7 8 Search 9 10 11 One authorConfidential: (KR) manually searched the top For seven general Review and internal medical Only journals according 12 to the impact factor of the 2015 Journal Citation Report (New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), 13 14 Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA Internal Medicine and PLoS Medicine) for 15 the most recent trial publications meeting our inclusion criteria.13 16 17 18 19 20 Inclusion criteria 21 22 We included publications of phase III and IV trials with one or more academic authors (determined 23 using the institutional address) that disclosed full industry funding. We defined full industry funding 24 25 as any trial with funding exclusively from one or more vaccine, pharmaceutical or device 26 companies. We included industry-supported trials described as investigator-initiated if the only 27 14 28 funding was from industry sources. 29 30 We defined academic authors as authors whose affiliation in the publication was a clinic, hospital, 31 32 university or nonprofit academic research centre. The lead academic author was selected 33 according to the following rank: corresponding author, first author, last author, second author, third 34 35 author, etc. If there were more than one academic corresponding author, the lead academic would 36 be deemed according to the following rank: first author, last author, second author, third author, 37 38 etc.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships
    Recommended Principles to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships Purpose: To sustain and protect academic freedom, academic professionalism, research integrity, and public trust. Dedicated to the memory of Victor J. Stone (AAUP President, 1982–84), University of Illinois College of Law AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS Distributed by the University of Illinois Press To impart the results of their own and their fellow specialists’ investigations and reflection, both to students and to the general public, without fear or favor . requires (among other things) that the university teacher shall be exempt from any pecuniary motive or inducement to hold, or to express, any conclusion which is not the genuine and uncolored product of his own study or that of fellow specialists. Indeed, the proper fulfillment of the work of the professoriate requires that our universities shall be so free that no fair- minded person shall find any excuse for even a suspicion that the utterances of university teachers are shaped or restricted by the judgment, not of profes- sional scholars, but of inexpert and possibly not wholly disinterested persons outside of their own ranks. To the degree that professional scholars, in the formation and promulgation of their opinions, are, or by the character of their tenure appear to be, subject to any motive other than their own sci- entific conscience and a desire for the respect of their fellow experts, to that degree the university teaching profession is corrupted; its proper influence upon public opinion is diminished, and vitiated; and society at large fails to get from its scholars, in an unadulterated form, the peculiar and necessary service which it is the office of the professional scholar to furnish.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright Transfer in Group-Authored Scientific Publications | Jaime A
    Insights – 34, 2021 Copyright transfer in group-authored scientific publications | Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva and Aceil Al-Khatib Copyright transfer in group- authored scientific publications Academic publishers have different definitions of multiple authorship and ghost/guest authorship. When a scientific paper is submitted to a journal, the general assumption is that its ethics and authorship-related rules have been respected. Copyright transfer is a central issue in the flow of scientific information. To familiarize more academics with this topic, we examine the issue of copyright transfer from authors to a publisher. A key argument is the potential invalidation of a copyright transfer agreement if one or some of the co-authors do not authorize the transferring author to sign the agreement on their behalf. Keywords collaboration; copyright; ethics; guest; ghost and gift authorship; joint authorship JAIME A. TEIXEIRA DA SILVA Independent Academic authorship researcher Authorship is of great importance in science publishing and has multiple functions,1 including intellectual contribution for the research conducted,2 and responsibility and accountability for the published work,3 as a currency for the quality of the published research and as credit for the authors as they advance their scientific careers.4 Collaborative research projects involve the division of professional labour to achieve desired objectives and this has caused a global expansion in the number of multi-authored publications.5 In the face of increasing collaboration globally,6 even though multiple authorship became ACEIL AL-KHATIB common in the past decade or so,7 until quite recently, there were considerable differences Associate Professor and disparities in the definitions of authorship among leading publishers, ethical bodies, or Department of Oral 8 in the ethical guidelines of research institutes and universities.
    [Show full text]
  • $ C^ 3$-Index: a Pagerank Based Multi-Faceted Metric for Authors
    Noname manuscript No. (will be inserted by the editor) C3-index: A PageRank based multi-faceted metric for authors’ performance measurement Dinesh Pradhan · Partha Sarathi Paul · Umesh Maheswari · Subrata Nandi · Tanmoy Chakraborty∗ Received: date / Accepted: date Abstract Ranking scientific authors is an important but challenging task, mostly due to the dynamic nature of the evolving scientific publications. The basic indicators of an author’s productivity and impact are still the number of publications and the citation count (leading to the popular metrics such as h-index, g-index etc.). H-index and its popular variants are mostly effective in ranking highly-cited authors, thus fail to resolve ties while ranking medium- cited and low-cited authors who are majority in number. Therefore, these metrics are inefficient to predict the ability of promising young researchers at the beginning of their career. In this paper, we propose C3-index that combines the effect of citations and collaborations of an author in a systematic way using a weighted multi-layered network to rank authors. We conduct our experiments on a massive publication dataset of Computer Science and show that – (i) C3- index is consistent over time, which is one of the fundamental characteristics of a ranking metric, (ii) C3-index is as efficient as h-index and its variants to rank highly-cited authors, (iii) C3-index can act as a conflict resolution metric to break ties in the ranking of medium-cited and low-cited authors, (iv) C3- index can also be used to predict future achievers at the early stage of their career.
    [Show full text]
  • Student Beliefs and Attitudes About Authorial Identity in Academic Writing
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by UDORA - University of Derby Online Research Archive Authorial identity Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing Gail Pittam,a* James Elander,b Joanne Lusher,c Pauline Foxd & Nicola Paynee a. Faculty of Health & Social Care, Anglia Ruskin University, UK b. Centre for Psychological Research, University of Derby, UK c. Department of Psychology, London Metropolitan University, UK d. Department of Psychology, Thames Valley University, London, UK e. Department of Psychology, Middlesex University, London, UK Correspondence: [email protected] Cite as: Pittam, G., Elander, J., Lusher, J., Fox, P., & Payne, N. (2009). Student beliefs and attitudes about authorial identity in academic writing. Studies in Higher Education, 34(2), 153-170. Abstract Authorial identity is the sense a writer has of themselves as an author and the textual identity they construct in their writing. This paper describes two studies exploring psychology students’ authorial identity in academic writing. A qualitative focus group study with 19 students showed that authorial identity was largely unfamiliar to students, and highlighted the obstacles perceived by students to constructing authorial identities in university assignments. A questionnaire survey of 318 students explored the factor structure of an 18-item Student Authorship Questionnaire (SAQ). Three factors described aspects of student authorial identity (‘confidence in writing’, ‘understanding authorship’ and ‘knowledge to avoid plagiarism’), and three factors described approaches to writing (‘top-down’, ‘bottom-up’ and ‘pragmatic’). Confidence in writing and knowledge to avoid plagiarism were significantly higher among year two than year one students. Both studies could inform interventions to reduce unintentional plagiarism by improving students’ authorial identity.
    [Show full text]
  • Irresponsible Authorship: a Growing Typology
    Steven Engel and April Johnson Irresponsible Authorship: A Growing Typology Academic spam email (ASE) has become its own specific subgenre. ASE includes messages from predatory journals offering quick and painless processes, opportunities to serve on editorial boards, or calls to present at dubious conferences (Wood and Krasowski). Like all electronic communication, ASE takes time to read, sort, and delete. In a study of recipients of the 2015 National Institute of Health’s K Award (a competitive career development funding mechanism), all respondents reported receiving academic spam emails daily, and over 15% of awardees indicated that they spent over 10 minutes a day dealing with them (Wilkinson, et al). In addition to being a nuisance, academic spam emails can provide challenges for new faculty members who are less able to determine the legitimacy of the quality of the offers due to a lack of experience. Even well-mentored developing researchers might be unsure of who to ask for guidance about the deluge of questionable opportunities. And because of this never-ending stream of email, it can be an additional challenge to determine when and how often to make the request. These spam emails range from ones that appear to be legitimate publishing venues or conferences to those that blatantly invite the receiver to commit fraud. Some feel like they are a mash-up of translated politeness moves, mail-merge errors, and a lack of understanding about the expectations of academics. Others are amusing in their boldness or cluelessness. But underlying many of these spam emails are elements that bring to the surface the array of ways that authorship can be abused in scholarly writing.
    [Show full text]
  • AAUP Recommended Principles & Practices to Guide Academy
    AAUP Recommended Principles & Practices to Guide Academy-Industry Relationships Purpose: To sustain and protect academic freedom, academic professionalism, research integrity and public trust Dedicated to the memory of Victor J. Stone (AAUP President 1982-1984), University of Illinois College of Law “To impart the results of their own and their fellow specialists’ investigations and reflection, both to students and to the general public, without fear or favor . requires (among other things) that the university teacher shall be exempt from any pecuniary motive or inducement to hold, or to express, any conclusion which is not the genuine and uncolored product of his own study or that of fellow specialists. Indeed, the proper fulfillment of the work of the professoriate requires that our universities shall be so free that no fair-minded person shall find any excuse for even a suspicion that the utterances of university teachers are shaped or restricted by the judgment, not of professional scholars, but of inexpert and possibly not wholly disinterested persons outside of their own ranks. To the degree that professional scholars, in the formation and promulgation of their opinions, are, or by the character of their tenure appear to be, subject to any motive other than their own scientific conscience and a desire for the respect of their fellow experts, to that degree the university teaching profession is corrupted; its proper influence upon public opinion is diminished, and vitiated; and society at large fails to get from its scholars, in an unadulterated form, the peculiar and necessary service which it is the office of the professional scholar to furnish.” “1915 Declaration of Principles on Academic Freedom and Academic Tenure,” AAUP Policy Documents and Reports, Tenth Edition (Washington, DC: AAUP, 2006), pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Authorship with and Acknowledgement of Patient Partners in Patient-Oriented Research
    University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Libraries & Cultural Resources Open Access Publications 2020-07-02 Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research Richards, Dawn P; Birnie, Kathryn A; Eubanks, Kathleen; Lane, Therese; Linkiewich, Delane; Singer, Lesley; Stinson, Jennifer N; Begley, Kimberly N Research Involvement and Engagement. 2020 Jul 02;6(1):38 http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112244 Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca Richards et al. Research Involvement and Engagement (2020) 6:38 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00213-6 COMMENTARY Open Access Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research Dawn P. Richards1,2*† , Kathryn A. Birnie1,3†, Kathleen Eubanks1, Therese Lane1, Delane Linkiewich1, Lesley Singer1, Jennifer N. Stinson1,4 and Kimberly N. Begley1 Abstract The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Chronic Pain Network was founded in 2016 and is a patient-oriented research network funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Network incorporates patient partners throughout its governance and operations meaning that patient partners may contribute to research projects in ways that warrant scientific authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The Network did a brief informal review of guidance on patient authorship in 2019, but could not find any practical documentation to guide its members on this topic. Note the term patient partner here refers to a patient (or caregiver or other person with lived experience) who is a partner or collaborator on a research team. This guidance does not address patients as participants in a research study.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Author and Authorship' in Scientific Journals
    Jay N Shah: ‘Author andEDITORIAL Authorship’ in Scientific Journals ‘Author and Authorship’ in Scientific Journals Jay N Shah Editor In Chief, Journal of Patan Academy of Health Sciences Broadly ‘author’ is a person who originated or gave existence to anything and takes responsibility for that’, as defined in the ‘medical-dictionary. thefreedictionary.com’. ISSN: 2091-2749 (Print) Science relies on new developments. Validation and accurate documentation 2091-2757 (Online) of scientific research findings is important. Author has the responsibility of integrity of research, the findings and its publication. Clear guidelines for ‘author and authorship’ are necessary to distinguish among authors, coauthors and guarantor in order to be responsible for the integrity of the research publication. The publication in the peer reviewed scientific journal Correspondence serves to communicate and validate such findings and so author needs to Prof. Dr. Jay N Shah have substantive intellectual contributions for the work. Editor in Chief Journal of Patan Academy of Health There is important and significant credit attached to author and authorship. Sciences Being listed as author in research publication has advantages of ‘respect from Email: [email protected], [email protected] the peers, progress in career and status’ in all aspects of ‘academic, social, and financial’ issues. Sharing authorship bounds us to take responsibility of all published information. All listed authors are accountable in case of fraud or misconduct. Authorship is the ‘collective’ responsibility of research and its publication. Authors need to take responsibility for their own specific contribution plus overall work and be familiar with all listed authors to minimize the possible misconduct of plagiarism, fabrication and falsification.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientific Authorship: Credit and Intellectual Property in Science
    Advance praise for Scientific Authorship'. ‘“ What is an author?’ is a question that has been central to cultural and literary studies for almost thirty years. This collection of essays opens up genuinely new perspectives on this question and shows us how much science studies has to contribute to fundamental issues in the humanities.” —Arnold I. Davidson, University of Chicago This page intentionally left blank SC I E N T I F I C A u t h o r s h ip Credit and Intellectual Property in Science ED ITE D BY M a r io B ia g io l i & P e t e r G a l is o n |J Routledge Taylor & Francis Group LONDON AND NEW YORK First published 2003 by Routledge Published 2013 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon 0X14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Copyright © 2003 by Taylor 8c Francis Books, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. “Uncommon Controversies” is abridged and adapted by permission of the publisher and the author from Who Owns Academic Work?: Battling for Control of Intellectual Property by Corynne McSherry, pp. 68-100, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Copyright © 2001 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College.
    [Show full text]
  • Developing Conceptions of Authorship: a Study Of
    DEVELOPING CONCEPTIONS OF AUTHORSHIP: A STUDY OF TEXTUAL PRACTICES AMONG STUDENTS IN A FIRST-YEAR WRITING PROGRAM by CHRISTIE LAMON BURNEY A DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of English in the Graduate School of The University of Alabama TUSCALOOSA, ALABAMA 2010 Copyright Christie Lamon Burney 2010 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ABSTRACT Much of the scholarship in composition studies focuses on plagiarism as an epidemic, students’ dwindling ethics and lack of dedication to their academic careers. A few scholars, however, look beyond the personal or moral “flaws” of the individual learner and explore how students perceive and respond to the work of the writing classroom, the very context in which and from which students compose. I build on their body of work by grounding this study with Stuart Greene’s insightful characterization of authorship as a “relational term. situated within a broad sociocultural landscape” (“Making Sense of My Own Ideas” 213). I turn to Robert Kegan’s influential work in The Evolving Self to unpack what it means to understand authorship as a “relational term” and to illuminate the complex interactions—the relational interactions— among student learners, the development of authorship, and the instructional environment of the writing classroom. This study uses survey research to examine students’ understanding and attitudes toward authorship and plagiarism. Participants included approximately 150 students enrolled in First- Year Writing (101, 102, and/ 103) and/or sophomore literature during the spring-fall semesters, 2009. Two areas of interest were: to learn about students’ beliefs and understanding of authorship and plagiarism at different points in their writing experiences; and, to explore relationships between students’ views of authorship and plagiarism and Kegan’s theory of psychological development.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidance on Authorship with and Acknowledgement of Patient Partners in Patient-Oriented Research Dawn P
    Richards et al. Research Involvement and Engagement (2020) 6:38 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-020-00213-6 COMMENTARY Open Access Guidance on authorship with and acknowledgement of patient partners in patient-oriented research Dawn P. Richards1,2*† , Kathryn A. Birnie1,3†, Kathleen Eubanks1, Therese Lane1, Delane Linkiewich1, Lesley Singer1, Jennifer N. Stinson1,4 and Kimberly N. Begley1 Abstract The Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research Chronic Pain Network was founded in 2016 and is a patient-oriented research network funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The Network incorporates patient partners throughout its governance and operations meaning that patient partners may contribute to research projects in ways that warrant scientific authorship as defined by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The Network did a brief informal review of guidance on patient authorship in 2019, but could not find any practical documentation to guide its members on this topic. Note the term patient partner here refers to a patient (or caregiver or other person with lived experience) who is a partner or collaborator on a research team. This guidance does not address patients as participants in a research study. This guidance has been co-written by a group of researchers and patient partners of the Chronic Pain Network in an effort to address this gap. It is intended for both researchers and patient partner audiences. This guidance is meant to facilitate conversations between researchers and patient partners about authorship and/or acknowledgement regarding research projects on which they collaborate. While the overall principles of academic authorship and acknowledgement remain unchanged, nuances for interpreting these principles through the lens of patient engagement or patient-oriented research is provided.
    [Show full text]
  • 618 Shared First Authorship
    618 COMMENTARY DOI: dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.700 Shared first authorship Amy Lapidow*; Paige Scudder* See end of article for authors’ affiliations. In most scientific communities, the order of author names on a publication serves to assign credit and responsibility. Unless authors are presented in alphabetical order, it is assumed that the first author contributes the most and the last author is the driving force, both intellectually and financially, behind the research. Many, but not all, journals individually delineate what it means to be a contributing author and the nature of each author’s role. But what does this mean when a paper has co-first authors? How are academic librarians going to handle questions surrounding co-first authorship in an era in which author metrics are important for career advancement and tenure? In this commentary, the authors look at the growing trend of co-first authorship and what this means for database searchers. In 1981, the largest number of authors on any paper principal investigator [5]. Despite this tradition, indexed by Clarivate Analytics was 118. In 2006, this there are no firm guidelines in place to ensure or number was 2,500, which was quickly topped in guarantee a fair interpretation of authors’ 2008 with 3,000 authors [1]. Currently, a physics contributions [6]. paper with 5,154 authors holds the record for the As multicenter studies and multiauthor largest number of contributors on a single paper. As collaborative research and publication grow, the role the pressure to publish, specialization of research, of the traditional first author is fading.
    [Show full text]