A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia.

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
Linda Brubaker, Jesse Nodora, Tamara Bavendam, John Connett, Amy M Claussen, Cora E Lewis, Kyle Rudser, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jean F Wyman, Janis M Miller
{"title":"A policy toolkit for authorship and dissemination policies may benefit NIH research consortia.","authors":"Linda Brubaker, Jesse Nodora, Tamara Bavendam, John Connett, Amy M Claussen, Cora E Lewis, Kyle Rudser, Siobhan Sutcliffe, Jean F Wyman, Janis M Miller","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2022.2116318","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Authorship and dissemination policies vary across NIH research consortia. We aimed to describe elements of real-life policies in use by eligible U01 clinical research consortia. Principal investigators of eligible, active U01 clinical research projects identified in the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database shared relevant policies. The characteristics of key policy elements, determined a priori, were reviewed and quantified, when appropriate. Twenty one of 81 research projects met search criteria and provided policies. K elements (e.g., in quotations): \"manuscript proposals reviewed and approved by committee\" (90%); \"guidelines for acknowledgements\" (86%); \"writing team formation\" (71%); \"process for final manuscript review and approval\" (71%), \"responsibilities for lead author\" (67%), \"guidelines for other types of publications\" (67%); \"draft manuscript review and approval\" (62%); \"recommendation for number of members per consortium site\" (57%); and \"requirement to identify individual contributions in the manuscript\" (19%). Authorship/dissemination policies for large team science research projects are highly variable. Creation of an NIH policies repository and accompanying toolkit with model language and recommended key elements could improve comprehensiveness, ethical integrity, and efficiency in team science work while reducing burden and cost on newly funded consortia and directing time and resources to scientific endeavors.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9975116/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2022.2116318","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Authorship and dissemination policies vary across NIH research consortia. We aimed to describe elements of real-life policies in use by eligible U01 clinical research consortia. Principal investigators of eligible, active U01 clinical research projects identified in the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database shared relevant policies. The characteristics of key policy elements, determined a priori, were reviewed and quantified, when appropriate. Twenty one of 81 research projects met search criteria and provided policies. K elements (e.g., in quotations): "manuscript proposals reviewed and approved by committee" (90%); "guidelines for acknowledgements" (86%); "writing team formation" (71%); "process for final manuscript review and approval" (71%), "responsibilities for lead author" (67%), "guidelines for other types of publications" (67%); "draft manuscript review and approval" (62%); "recommendation for number of members per consortium site" (57%); and "requirement to identify individual contributions in the manuscript" (19%). Authorship/dissemination policies for large team science research projects are highly variable. Creation of an NIH policies repository and accompanying toolkit with model language and recommended key elements could improve comprehensiveness, ethical integrity, and efficiency in team science work while reducing burden and cost on newly funded consortia and directing time and resources to scientific endeavors.

作者身份和传播政策工具包可能有利于美国国立卫生研究院的研究联合体。
美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)各研究联盟的著作权和传播政策各不相同。我们的目标是描述符合条件的 U01 临床研究联盟所使用的实际政策要素。美国国立卫生研究院研究组合在线报告工具数据库中确定的符合条件的、正在进行的 U01 临床研究项目的主要研究者分享了相关政策。对先验确定的关键政策要素的特征进行了审查,并在适当时进行了量化。81 个研究项目中有 21 个符合搜索标准并提供了政策。K 要素(如引文):"委员会审查和批准"(90%);"致谢指南"(86%);"写作团队的组建"(71%);"最终稿件审查和批准流程"(71%);"主要作者的责任"(67%);"其他类型出版物的指南"(67%);"稿件审查和批准草案"(62%);"关于每个联合研究机构成员人数的建议"(57%);以及 "在稿件中标明个人贡献的要求"(19%)。大型团队科学研究项目的作者/发表政策差异很大。创建一个 NIH 政策库和配套的工具包,其中包括示范语言和建议的关键要素,可以提高团队科学工作的全面性、道德完整性和效率,同时减轻新资助联盟的负担和成本,并将时间和资源用于科学工作。
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
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信