<title>The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines</title>  <p>A starting point for a discussion of authorship is the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines. In 1978, a group that is small of of general medical journals met informally in Vancouver, British Columbia, to ascertain guidelines for the format of manuscripts submitted for their journals. The group became known as the Vancouver Group. Its requirements for manuscripts, including formats for bibliographic references manufactured by the National Library of Medicine, were first published in 1979. The Vancouver Group expanded and evolved in to <a href="https://eliteessaywriters.com/buy-essay-online/">buy essay</a> the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which meets annually. The ICMJE gradually has broadened its concerns to incorporate principles that are ethical to publication in biomedical journals. Over the years, ICMJE has issued updated versions of what are called Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals along with other statements relating to policy that is editorial.<!--more--> The absolute most recent update was in November 2003. Approximately 500 journals that are biomedical towards the guidelines.</p>   <p>In line with the ICMJE guidelines:</p>   <p>The Schцn Case: Taking responsibility for other people' work <br /> read more </p>   <p><ul>    <li>Authorship credit ought to be based on 1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of information; 2) drafting the content or revising it critically for important content that is intellectual and 3) final approval associated with version to be published. Authors should meet conditions 1, 2, and 3.</li>    <li>When a big, multi-center group has conducted the work, the group should identify the individuals who accept direct responsibility for the manuscript. These people should fully meet the criteria for authorship defined above and editors will ask these people to accomplish author that is journal-specific conflict of interest disclosure forms. When submitting a group author manuscript, the corresponding author should clearly indicate the preferred citation and may clearly identify all individual authors plus the group name. Journals will generally list other people in the  group when you look at the acknowledgements. The National Library of Medicine indexes the  group name and also the names of individuals the group has recognized as being directly responsible for the manuscript.</li>    <li>Acquisition of funding, number of data, or supervision that is general of research group, alone, will not justify authorship.</li>    <li>Each author need to have participated sufficiently within the strive to take responsibility that is public appropriate portions associated with the content.</li>    <li>The order of authorship regarding the byline should be a joint decision for the co-authors. Authors should really be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.</li>    <li>All contributors who do not meet the requirements for authorship ought to be placed in an acknowledgments section.</li>  </ul>  </p>   <h2>C. Issues with ICMJE recommendations</h2>  <p>Two major issues with the ICMJE guidelines are that lots of members of the community that is scientific unaware of them and lots of scientists do not sign up for them. Relating to Stanford University's Mildred Cho and Martha McKee, writing in <i>Science's Next Wave</i> in 2002, a 1994 study revealed that 21% of authors of basic science papers and 30% of authors of clinical studies had no involvement when you look at the conception or design of a project, the design of the  study, the analysis and interpretation of data, or even the writing or revisions. Actual practice, it seems, disagrees with ICMJE recommendations.</p>   <p>Eugene Tarnow, writing in <i>Science and Ethics</i> in 2002, reports findings related into the 1994 study. He cited a 1992 study of 1,000 fellows that are postdoctoral the University of California, bay area, by which fewer than half knew about any university, school, laboratory, or departmental guidelines for research and publication. Half believed that being head of the laboratory was sufficient for authorship, and slightly fewer thought that getting funding was enough for authorship.</p>   <p>A report by Tarnow of postdoctoral fellows in physics in the 1990s also shows divergences from ICMJE precepts and points to many other concerns about authorship within the sciences. Tarnow found that 74% regarding the postdoctoral fellows did not recognize the American Physical Society's guidelines or thought it was vague or open to multiple interpretations. Half the guidelines were thought by the respondents suggested that obtaining funding was sufficient for authorship, while the other half failed to. The findings also revealed that in 75% associated with the postdoc-supervisor relationships authorship criteria was not discussed; in 61% the postdoc's criteria are not "clearly agreed upon"; as well as in 70% of this relationships the criteria for designating other authors was not "clearly agreed upon."</p>   <p>Clearly, different laboratories have different practices about who must be included as an author on a paper. At some institutions, it's quite common for heads of departments to be listed as authors, as so-called "guest authors" or "gift authors," although they never have directly contributed into the research. At other institutions, laboratory heads would routinely include as authors technicians and also require performed many experiments but might not have made an important intellectual contribution to a paper, while some would give a technician only an acknowledgment at the conclusion of a paper. Some academic supervisors may have their graduate students collect data, do research, and jot down results, yet not give them credit on a paper, while some can give authorship credit to students. Some foreigners in the us may feel obligated to put mentors from their house countries on a paper even though they would not take part in the investigation.</p>   <h2> Alternatives to ICMJE</h2>  <p>Another problem with the ICMJE guidelines who has come up is that each author may possibly not be in a position to take responsibility that is full the totality of a paper. In a day and age of increasing specialization, one person knowing all the statistical analyses and methodology that is scientific went into getting worthwhile results could be unlikely. Because of this, some journals, such as the <i>British Medical Journal</i> and <i>Lancet</i>, have turned away from the concept of an author and instead think in terms of an individual who is prepared to take responsibility when it comes to content regarding the paper. The <i>Journal for the American Medical Association</i> also now requires authors to submit a form attesting into the nature of their contribution to a paper.</p>   <p>The <i>British Medical Journal</i> says that listing authorship according to ICMJE guidelines will not clarify that is in charge of overall content and excludes those whose contribution happens to be the number of data. The journal lists contributors in two ways: it publishes the <i>authors'</i> names at the beginning of the paper, and lists <i>contributors</i>, some of whom may not be included as authors, at the end, and provides details of who planned, conducted, and reported the work as a result. One or more associated with the contributors are thought "guarantors" for the paper. The guarantor must make provision for a written statement she accepts full responsibility for the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish that he or. <i>BMJ</i> says that researchers must determine among themselves the particular nature of each man or woman's contribution, and encourages discussion that is open all participants.</p>   <p>American Psychological Association excerpt on publications. <br /> see the excerpt </p>   <p>A clause concerning contributorship: "Editors are strongly encouraged to develop and implement a contributorship policy, as well as a policy on identifying who is responsible for the integrity of the work as a complete. with increased understanding of the problem, ICMJE now has in its guidelines"</p>   <h3>E. Other authorship responsibilities</h3>  <p>Besides clarifying the issue of who is an author and who deserves credit for work, an author has its own other responsibilities (what exactly is the following has been adapted from Michael Kalichman's educational material when it comes to University of California, north park):</p>   <p>Checklist for Authors from <i>Science's Next Wave</i> <br /> read more </p>   <p><ul>    <li><u>Good writing</u>: Authors must write well and explain methods, data analysis and conclusions so they can be understood by a reader and be able to replicate findings. Charts, tables and graphs must also be clear.</li>    <li><u>Accuracy</u>: Although every effort must certanly be built to n't have mistakes in a paper, be they in a footnote or from the research itself, unintentional errors creep in. Authors ought to be careful.</li>    <li><u>Context and citations</u>: the writer needs to put research into appropriate context and supply citations into the manuscript that both agree and disagree aided by the work.</li>    <li><u>Publishing negative results</u>: If researchers never publish negative results, it makes a impression that is false biases the literature. If results are not published from a drug trial, as an example, that either shows a medication does not work or has unwanted effects, clinicians reviewing the literature could get the wrong idea in regards to the medication’s true value. As a result, other researchers may continue with studies about a drug that is potentially bad.</li>