Evaluating Authorship Guidelines of Top Medical Schools and Plastic Surgery Journals: A Comparative Analysis.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Nicholas A Mirsky, Sara E Munkwitz, Wrood M Kassira, Pawan Pathagamage, Paulo G Coelho, Seth R Thaller
{"title":"Evaluating Authorship Guidelines of Top Medical Schools and Plastic Surgery Journals: A Comparative Analysis.","authors":"Nicholas A Mirsky, Sara E Munkwitz, Wrood M Kassira, Pawan Pathagamage, Paulo G Coelho, Seth R Thaller","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004435","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Authorship in research is crucial for academic recognition and accountability; however, there remain discrepancies throughout institutions regarding authorship inclusion. This review aimed to evaluate the similarities, variations and distinct approaches to authorship criteria. We intend to focus on how guidelines address issues like honorary authorship, authorship order, and the resolution of disagreements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Authorship criteria from the top 10 NIH-funded medical schools and the top 10 plastic surgery journals as defined by their Journal Citation Reports (JCR) quartiles were collected from August 30, 2024, to September 5, 2024.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our findings revealed significant differences in authorship policies, with medical schools generally providing more comprehensive and educational approaches compared to journals. While most organizations referenced International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria, there was variability in addressing key issues such as ghost and honorary authorship, authorship order determination, and the use of AI in research. Medical schools more frequently defined and prohibited ghost and honorary authorships, offered guidance on authorship order, and provided mechanisms for dispute resolution. Notably, guidelines regarding AI usage in research were largely absent or ambiguous across all organizations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the need for greater standardization and clarity in authorship guidelines, particularly in light of emerging challenges posed by AI and increasingly collaborative research environments. Implementing standardized contribution declaration systems, such as CRediT, could enhance transparency and fairness in authorship attribution. As research practices continue to evolve, regular reassessment and updating of authorship guidelines will be crucial to maintain the integrity of scientific publication in academic medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004435","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Authorship in research is crucial for academic recognition and accountability; however, there remain discrepancies throughout institutions regarding authorship inclusion. This review aimed to evaluate the similarities, variations and distinct approaches to authorship criteria. We intend to focus on how guidelines address issues like honorary authorship, authorship order, and the resolution of disagreements.

Methods: Authorship criteria from the top 10 NIH-funded medical schools and the top 10 plastic surgery journals as defined by their Journal Citation Reports (JCR) quartiles were collected from August 30, 2024, to September 5, 2024.

Results: Our findings revealed significant differences in authorship policies, with medical schools generally providing more comprehensive and educational approaches compared to journals. While most organizations referenced International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria, there was variability in addressing key issues such as ghost and honorary authorship, authorship order determination, and the use of AI in research. Medical schools more frequently defined and prohibited ghost and honorary authorships, offered guidance on authorship order, and provided mechanisms for dispute resolution. Notably, guidelines regarding AI usage in research were largely absent or ambiguous across all organizations.

Conclusions: This study highlights the need for greater standardization and clarity in authorship guidelines, particularly in light of emerging challenges posed by AI and increasingly collaborative research environments. Implementing standardized contribution declaration systems, such as CRediT, could enhance transparency and fairness in authorship attribution. As research practices continue to evolve, regular reassessment and updating of authorship guidelines will be crucial to maintain the integrity of scientific publication in academic medicine.

评价顶级医学院和整形外科期刊作者指南:比较分析。
背景:研究的作者身份对学术认可和问责至关重要;然而,各个机构在作者纳入方面仍然存在差异。本综述旨在评价作者身份标准的相似性、差异和不同方法。我们打算把重点放在指导方针如何处理荣誉作者、作者顺序和解决分歧等问题上。方法:从2024年8月30日至2024年9月5日收集美国国立卫生研究院资助的前10所医学院和按期刊引用报告(JCR)四分位数定义的前10家整形外科期刊的作者标准。结果:我们的研究结果揭示了作者政策的显著差异,与期刊相比,医学院通常提供更全面、更有教育意义的方法。虽然大多数组织参考了国际医学期刊编辑委员会的标准,但在解决诸如幽灵作者和荣誉作者、作者顺序确定以及在研究中使用人工智能等关键问题方面存在差异。医学院更频繁地定义和禁止幽灵作者和荣誉作者,提供关于作者顺序的指导,并提供解决争议的机制。值得注意的是,在所有组织中,关于人工智能在研究中的使用的指导方针在很大程度上是缺失的或模糊的。结论:本研究强调了作者指南需要更大的标准化和清晰度,特别是考虑到人工智能带来的新挑战和日益合作的研究环境。实施标准化的贡献申报系统,如CRediT,可以提高作者归属的透明度和公平性。随着研究实践的不断发展,定期重新评估和更新作者资格指南对于保持学术医学科学出版的完整性至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信