Author Guidelines

Direct Links to Author Guidelines

INTRODUCTION: Authorship in gastroenterology society guidelines and technical reviews may aid academic advancement. Challenges facing women in academic gastroenterology have gained recent attention, and there may be a disparity in authorship of these documents. The purpose of this study was to analyze the proportion of female authors of major gastroenterology society guidelines and technical reviews in comparison to males. METHODS: American Association for the Study of Liver Disease (AASLD), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), and American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guidelines and technical reviews were identified from online materials. Documents were included from 2007 to 2018. The sex of each author, and the total number of guideline authors were abstracted. The number of female authors was compared to the total number of authors. We also examined the proportion of guidelines and technical reviews with female first authors. The time period was broken into three equal periods: 2007-2010, 2011-2014 and 2015-2018. Data were analyzed with descriptive statistics using Excel (Version 16.23). The Cochrane-Armitage trend test was used to compare the proportion of female authors between time periods. RESULTS: Eighty-three guidelines and technical reviews from 2007 to 2018 were identified. A total of 425 authors were identified after combining author totals of each guideline and technical review while excluding duplicates. Eighty-eight (21%) of authors were women. The total percentage of guideline and technical review authors who were women varied according to each society and over time but remained persistently below that of men (see Figure 1). The proportion of female authors of AASLD guidelines increased from 21% in 2007-2010 to 34% in 2015-2018 (P = 0.042). Female authorship was stable across time for ACG guidelines (20%, 16%, 18%; P = 0.713). For AGA guideline and technical reviews, female authorship declined from 24% in 2011-2014 to 13% in 2015-2018 (P = 0.045). The majority of first authors of guidelines and technical reviews for each society were male (see Figure 2). CONCLUSION: There were significant disparities in female authorship of guidelines and technical reviews by the AASLD, ACG and AGA. There was a statistically significant increase in female authorship over the past ten years only for AASLD guidelines. Addressing disparities in guideline and technical review authorship may promote academic advancement for female gastroenterologists.

Background:Women are generally less represented as first author among original medical researches and clinical guidelines. Indeed, women are first authors in only 30% of clinical guidelines published in high impact medical journals. It is not known if a comparable underrepresentation occurs also in rheumatologic guidelines.Objectives:The aim of the present analysis is to evaluate the representation of female authors in rheumatological guidelines over a period of time between 2004 and 2019.Methods:We searched PubMed for guidelines published in English in the rheumatological field from 1st January 2004 to 1st January 2019. Gender of each author (man or woman) was identified by use of a minimum of two resources (i.e., author’s name and an internet search to identify the author’s photograph or gender pronoun).Results:We found 366 guidelines published between 2004 and 2019 (Table 1: stratified by year of publication and Table 2: stratified by disease). Overall, the proportion of female first authors was 32.0% (95% CI, 28.0% - 35%). After stratification by year of publication the percentage of female first authors was lower in past years compared to recent years. The percentage of female first author increased substantially over the time (Figure 1).Table 1.Percentage of female and male first author of rheumatological guidelines stratified by yearsYears% FEMALE%MALE2004 (n=14)21.478.62005 (n=21)23.876.22006 (n=25)32.068.02007 (n=32)37.562.52008 (n=43)20.979.12009 (n=18)33.366.72010 (n=15)6.793.32011 (n=27)25.974.12012 (n=27)25.974.12013 (n=20)48.351.72014 (n=20)25,075,02015 (n=13)46,253,82016 (n=20)45,055,02017 (n=29)51,748,32018 (n=22)40,959,1Table 2.Percentage of female and male first author of rheumatological guidelines stratified by diseaseDisease% FEMALE% MALEOsteoarthritis (n=34)26.573.5Rheumatoid arthritis (n=96)18.881.2Fibromyalgia (n=30)2080Lupus erythematosus (n=29)34.565.5Psoriatic arthritis and Spondyloarthritis (n=73)23.376.7Sjogren syndrome (n=5)4060Gout (n=19)10.589.5Systemic sclerosis (n=18)16.783.3Polymyalgia and Giant cells’ arteritis (n=12)0100Osteoporosis (n=26)30.869.2ANCA associated vasculitides (n=14)21.478.6Polymyositis and Dermatomyositis (n=6)5050Behcet’s disease (n=4)2575Figure 1.Temporal trend of the percentage of first author gender from 2004 to 2019 (male in blue, female in pink)Conclusion:We found a prevalence of male as first authors of guidelines in the rheumatological field published between January 2004 and January 2019. The EULAR Task Force on Gender Equity in Academic Rheumatology (EULAR GEAR) has been recently established, making an important first step toward gender equity in the authorship of guidelines in the rheumatological fields. Indeed, in the last 15 years we have witnessed an increase in female representativeness. Notwithstanding, efforts should be made to improve the representation of female authors nationally and internationally.Disclosure of Interests:Giovanni Adami: None declared, Ombretta Viapiana: None declared, Elisabetta Vantaggiato: None declared, Camilla Benini: None declared, Denise Rotta: None declared, Davide Gatti Speakers bureau: Davide Gatti reports personal fees from Abiogen, Amgen, Janssen-Cilag, Mundipharma, outside the submitted work., Maurizio Rossini Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Abiogen, Amgen, BMS, Eli-Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi, Sandoz and UCB

BackgroundThe International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has published clear guidelines on the authorship of scientific papers. It is the research team’s responsibility to review and ensure those guidelines are met. Authorship ethics and practices have been examined among healthcare professionals or among particular health science students such as medical students. However, there is limited evidence to assess the knowledge of authorship roles and practices among health science students.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study to assess the knowledge of authorship guidelines practices among health science students at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A survey was developed and distributed. It covered several domains, including demographic characteristics, participant’s knowledge and attitude of authorship practices, knowledge and experience with ghost and guest authorships, and knowledge of institutional authorship policies. Moreover, a score was computed to reflect the respondents’ knowledge about authorship practices.ResultsAmong the 321 participants who agreed to take the survey, two-thirds agreed with and supported that multi-authored articles’ credit allocation should be based on the most significant contribution and contributions to the manuscript writing. Almost 47% agreed that team relationships would influence authorship allocation. The majority of the participants were not aware of their institutional research and publication policies. Also, around 50% of participants were not aware of guest or ghost authorships. Finally, the knowledge score about authorship credits, allocation, contribution, order, and guidelines was higher among students who were assigned as corresponding authors and those who were aware of their institutional authorship guidelines and policies.ConclusionIn conclusion, our findings suggest that health science students may have limited knowledge about authorship guidelines and unethical behaviors involved in a scientific publication. Universities and research centers should make more efforts to raise the awareness of health science students regarding authorship guidelines while ensuring that they comply with those guidelines.

In 2017, the ‘Author Guidelines’ for the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal were revised so as to better inform prospective contributors of the journal's aim and scope; submission and reporting format requirements; ethical considerations; manuscript types available; governing copyright principles; and publishing processes. The guidelines now align minimum information requirements with the increasingly complex and rapidly evolving regulatory, standards and technical context of scholarly publishing.

To explore authorship issues related to medical students' primary research projects, assess medical students' knowledge about authorship issues in biomedical research, and determine their interest in learning about authorship guidelines. In 2011, the authors developed and conducted an electronic survey of 243 U.S. medical students who attended an educational event at the National Institutes of Health as part of their funded, yearlong research fellowship programs. The authors then analyzed the results using descriptive statistics. Of 243 students, 152 (63%) responded. Most (120/151; 79%) had completed or were in the process of writing a manuscript based on their projects. Of these, most (95/119; 80%) wrote the entire manuscript independently or with guidance. Whereas almost two-thirds (99/152; 65%) indicated that expectations and criteria for authorship were clarified for them, 26% (40/152) indicated that they were not. Most students (108/118; 92%) were in the authorship position they expected and had no concerns about who the other authors were (91/119; 77%). Of those with concerns, 52% (11/21) did not raise the issue for fear of challenging their mentor. Two-thirds (95/145; 66%) never received formal training in authorship guidelines, and 41% (42/103) believed such training would be valuable. Although a majority of students had conversations about authorship and were clear about the guidelines for ethical authorship, additional work is needed. The authors recommend that academic institutions develop a menu of options for teaching students about this important area in research ethics.

Objectives:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) are designed to be rigorous research methodologies that synthesize information and inform practice. An increase in their publication runs parallel to quality concerns and a movement toward standards to improve reporting and methodology. With the goal of informing the guidance librarians provide to SR/MA teams, this study assesses online journal author guidelines from an institutional sample to determine whether these author guidelines address SR/MA methodological quality.Methods:A Web of Science Core Collection (Clarivate) search identified SRs/MAs published in 2014–2019 by authors affiliated with a single institution. The AMSTAR 2 checklist was used to develop an assessment tool of closed questions specific to measures for SR/MA methodological quality in author guidelines, with questions added about author guidelines in general. Multiple reviewers completed the assessment.Results:The author guidelines of 141 journals were evaluated. Less than 20% addressed at least one of the assessed measures specific to SR/MA methodological quality. There was wide variation in author guidelines between journals from the same publisher apart from the American Medical Association, which consistently offered in-depth author guidelines. Normalized Eigenfactor and Article Influence Scores did not indicate author guideline breadth.Conclusions:Most author guidelines in the institutional sample did not address SR/MA methodological quality. When consulting with teams embarking on SRs/MAs, librarians should not expect author guidelines to provide details about the requirements of the target journals. Librarians should advise teams to follow established SR/MA standards, contact journal staff, and review SRs/MAs previously published in the journal.

BackgroundGenerative artificial intelligence (GAI) has developed rapidly and been increasingly used in scholarly publishing, so it is urgent to examine guidelines for its usage. This cross-sectional study aims to examine the coverage and type of recommendations of GAI usage guidelines among medical journals and how these factors relate to journal characteristics.MethodsFrom the SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) list for medicine in 2022, we generated two groups of journals: top SJR ranked journals (N = 200) and random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals (N = 140). For each group, we examined the coverage of author and reviewer guidelines across four categories: no guidelines, external guidelines only, own guidelines only, and own and external guidelines. We then calculated the number of recommendations by counting the number of usage recommendations for author and reviewer guidelines separately. Regression models examined the relationship of journal characteristics with the coverage and type of recommendations of GAI usage guidelines.ResultsA higher proportion of top SJR ranked journals provided author guidelines compared to the random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals (95.0% vs. 86.7%, P < 0.01). The two groups of journals had the same median of 5 on a scale of 0 to 7 for author guidelines and a median of 1 on a scale of 0 to 2 for reviewer guidelines. However, both groups had lower percentages of journals providing recommendations for data analysis and interpretation, with the random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals having a significantly lower percentage (32.5% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.05). A higher SJR score was positively associated with providing GAI usage guidelines for both authors (all P < 0.01) and reviewers (all P < 0.01) among the random sample of non-top SJR ranked journals.ConclusionsAlthough most medical journals provided their own GAI usage guidelines or referenced external guidelines, some recommendations remained unspecified (e.g., whether AI can be used for data analysis and interpretation). Additionally, journals with lower SJR scores were less likely to provide guidelines, indicating a potential gap that warrants attention. Collaborative efforts are needed to develop specific recommendations that better guide authors and reviewers.

PurposeThis paper aims to compare guidelines for authors in Croatian scholarly journals regarding six scientific fields (according to Croatian classification) and to show the representation of technical and ethical issues that are explained in guidelines for authors.Design/methodology/approachThe aim of the research is to identify elements that are included in guidelines for authors in Croatian scholarly journals from all scientific fields. Fourteen parameters for 200 journals were analyzed (all the journals that had published at least one 2016 issue by the end of February 2017).FindingsThe parameter that is explained in the most journals is the length of the manuscript (91.5 per cent). The lowest number of journals explains Open Researcher and Contributor ID (1.5 per cent). The highest percentage of journals that explain plagiarism is in the field of natural sciences (44 per cent). As compared to the results of previous researches, there is an increase in the number of ethical questions mentioned in the guidelines for authors of Croatian scholarly journals.Practical implicationsThis paper provides recommendations and suggestions that could help journal editors make guidelines for authors more informative. That could help in advancing editorial process (e.g. peer review process) and in avoiding misconducts (e.g. plagiarism or false attribution of authorship).Originality/valueThis paper is the first detailed content analysis of guidelines for authors in all Croatian scholarly journals.

Gender differences remain a serious issue in the gastroenterology field, which negatively affect the career success and academic advancement of female gastroenterologists. In this study, we aim to identify gender differences in the authors of global major Gastroenterology Society guidelines. We included six associations and collected guidelines published between 2003 and 2022. The genders of authors were determined and recorded for each guideline. Linear by linear association test was used to assess trends every 5 years. We included 210 guidelines and 461 authors. The proportion of female first and senior authors was 11.3% and 9.8%, respectively. The number of female first and senior authors in most societies has improved over the past 20 years, with the largest increase in the AGA. Women are still underrepresented among the authors of guidelines. Although gender differences have gained more attention in recent years, there are many obstacles to achieving gender equality.

The PRIASE 2021 and PRILE 2021 guidelines were developed based on the Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines (Moher et al., 2010). In brief, for each guideline, the project leaders (VN and PD) formed a steering committee with various world-leading experts. Each steering committee developed an initial draft checklist and flowchart deemed essential for writing manuscripts describing animal or laboratory studies specifically related to Endodontology. The new guidelines were developed by combining and modifying several existing guidelines [e.g. ARRIVE; modified CONSORT checklist of items for reporting in vitro studies of dental materials; Clinical and Laboratory Images in Publications (CLIP) principles] but also adding several new items. Each steering committee created a Delphi group with approximately 30 members and an Online Meeting group with approximately 20 members from across the globe. The Delphi group members were invited to participate in an online Delphi process to achieve consensus on the items to be included in each guideline as well as each flowchart. The checklists and flowcharts were then discussed during the online meetings. Based on the feedback received from the meetings, each steering committee revised the guidelines (checklists and flowcharts) and piloted them by asking several experts to write hypothetical manuscripts describing animal or laboratory studies related to Endodontology whilst using the PRIASE 2021 or PRILE 2021 guidelines. The template of the checklist and flowchart related to each guideline are freely accessible on the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for study Designs in Endodontology (PRIDE)’ website (www.pride-endodonticguidelines.org) within the relevant PRIDE statements. The International Endodontic Journal has endorsed the PRIASE 2021 and PRILE 2021 guidelines in the expectation they will improve the quality, transparency and completeness of manuscripts submitted to the Journal within those categories. From now on, the International Endodontic Journal will expect authors to adhere to the PRIASE 2021 and PRILE 2021 guidelines when submitting manuscripts describing animal and laboratory studies, respectively. Authors are expected to include the relevant checklist (not published within the manuscript but used by referees and editors) and flowchart (published as a figure in the manuscript for readers to visualize) in their submission material, just as they do for a PRISMA statement. To assure readers that the guidelines have been adhered to, authors are expected to include the following statement as the first paragraph within the ‘Materials and Methods’ section. For animal studies: ‘The manuscript of this animal study has been written according to Preferred Reporting Items for Animal studies in Endodontology (PRIASE) 2021 guidelines (Nagendrababu et al., 2021). Figure X is a visual representation of the study design and its outcomes’. It is recommended that authors consult the following papers when writing manuscripts, which explain the rationale for the PRIASE 2021 guidelines and their importance: Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JA, Priya E, Jayaraman J, Pulikkotil SJ, Camilleri J, RM S, Dummer PMH (2021) PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: a consensus-based development. International Endodontic Journal 54, 848–57. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iej.13477). Nagendrababu V, Kishen A, Murray PE, Nekoofar MH, de Figueiredo JA, Priya E, Jayaraman J, Pulikkotil SJ, Jakovljevic A, Dummer PMH (2021) PRIASE 2021 guidelines for reporting animal studies in Endodontology: Explanation and Elaboration. International Endodontic Journal 54, 858–86. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iej.13481). For laboratory studies: ‘The manuscript of this laboratory study has been written according to Preferred Reporting Items for Laboratory studies in Endodontology (PRILE) 2021 guidelines (Nagendrababu et al., 2021). Figure X is a visual representation of the study design and its outcomes’. It is recommended that authors consult the following papers when writing manuscripts, which explain the rationale for the PRILE 2021 guidelines and their importance: Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, OA Peters, IN Rôças, JF Siqueira Jr, E Priya, J Jayaraman, SJ Pulikkotil, J Camilleri, C Boutsioukis, G Rossi-Fedele, PMH Dummer (2021) PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontics: a consensus-based development. International Endodontic Journal May 3. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13542. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/iej.13542). Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, OA Peters, IN Rôças, JF Siqueira Jr, E Priya, J Jayaraman, SJ Pulikkotil, N Suresh, PMH Dummer (2021) PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontics: Explanation and elaboration. International Endodontic Journal May 13. doi: 10.1111/iej.13565. (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iej.13565) The ‘Author guidelines’ section for submission of animal and laboratory studies to the Journal are being revised to align with the new reporting guidelines, see: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652591/homepage/forauthors.html Clinicians, academics, undergraduate and postgraduate students can provide feedback on the PRIDE website as well as on the individual guidelines by using the ‘Contact Us’ page of the PRIDE website—http://pride-endodonticguidelines.org/contact/. The entire suite of PRIDE guidelines and associated editorials and supporting manuscripts are available on the Wiley Online Library site for the International Endodontic Journal at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/page/journal/13652591/homepage/pride-guidelines.htm The International Endodontic Journal looks forward to receiving high-quality manuscripts that report animal and laboratory studies.

Recent studies have shown that women are underrepresented as authors of medical research and clinical practice guidelines. This study aimed to evaluate gender disparities of authors of major hepatology guidelines. We reviewed the hepatology guidelines published by the following major gastroenterology societies from January 2008 to September 2022: the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases (AASLD), Asian-Pacific Association for the Study of the Liver (APASL), British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG), European Association for the Study of the Liver (EASL) and Korean Association for the Study of the Liver (KASL). We determined the topic and the gender of all authors of each guideline. The numbers of men authors, women authors and total authors were collected. The trends of women first authors, women senior authors and total women authors were assessed. A logistic regression analysis was performed to analyse the relationship between the gender of the first or senior author and related factors. We identified 103 hepatology guidelines published between January 2008 and September 2022 published by the AGA, ACG, AASLD, APASL, BSG, EASL, and KASL. The gender of 1096 of 1100 (99.6%) authors was determined. Therefore, a total of 1096 authors were included: 223 (20.3%) authors were women and 873 (79.7%) authors were men. Women comprised 14.6% of all first authors, and 20.4% of all senior authors were women. Only the AASLD had writing committees comprising more than 30% total women authors. The proportions of women senior authors and total women authors increased significantly during the study period (p < .05). Women first authors and women senior authors were more likely to publish guidelines with more women authors. Women first authors were less likely to be co-authors with men authors. Over the course of the past decade, the proportion of women authors of major hepatology guidelines has been low; however, this gender gap appears to be closing.

Housekeeping

Quality criteria for randomized controlled studies: obstetrical journal guidelines

INTRODUCTION: There is a lack of data in regards to industry financial relationship in gastroenterology. The Sunshine Act CMS Open Payment Database is a national program that increases the transparency of financial relationships between physicians and industry. Per the 2011 Institute of Medicine standards for guidelines, an increased effort is being placed on minimizing conflicts of guideline authors. We aimed to delineate the financial relationships between industry and guideline authors in gastroenterology using the Sunshine database. METHODS: Guidelines and guideline authors using GRADE methodology from American Association for the Study of Liver Disease, American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterology Association, and American Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy societies from 2013 to October 15, 2018, were abstracted. We searched the Sunshine database for each author the year the guideline was published and the year before the guideline publication date, when available. Only general payments were examined. Authors who published many guidelines in the same year were only counted once when calculating general payments. RESULTS: 562 authors were included. Of those, a total of 249 guideline authors were found on the open payment website with available data. 238 (95.5%) received general payments during the time of their publication, and 176 (73.9%) of them got more than $500. 238/562 (44.3%) of total authors received general payments. Payments made for consulting amounted to $2,279,469 (39.5%). A total of 5,883 payments were made. The total amount of general payments for all authors is $5,775,403. The average payment per author was $24,266. CONCLUSION: Collectively, guideline authors received at least $5,775,403 from industry relationships between 2013-2018 and three quarters received over the amount $500. The largest amount of money was spent on consulting fees. Less than half of Gastroenterology guideline authors receive payments from industry during the time they are working on guidelines, but as a scientific community, we can improve in minimizing external influences in the guideline development process.