Editorial: The Rise of the Asterisk: One Step to Facilitate Team Science.

Abstract

As a consequence of dramatic advances in the biological sciences, bioinformatics, and technology, we have unprecedented opportunities to further advance our understanding of human biology and to apply that understanding to the development of diagnostics, therapeutics, and devices for the betterment of human health. How can we best take advantage of this opportunity and make it a reality? It is unusual for one investigator or even one research group to be able to master all of the new approaches, technologies, and areas of expertise necessary to take full advantage of the currently available tools. Hence, to most effectively advance research requires greater collaboration than in previous generations. Indeed the term “team science” has been coined to describe good old-fashioned collaboration, because such collaborative approaches are more necessary and more broadly used than ever. The basic concept that 21st century research is most effective when a team of investigators works together, each bringing together their own specific area of expertise to solve a larger problem, is one that should be embraced. “We must continue to support current and identify additional ways to foster collaborations, and to find ways that we can recognize, and have academic institutions recognize, the individual contributions of collaborative team members.” We examined the average number of authors on original research reports published in Molecular Endocrinology and The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM) over the past several decades; in the case of Molecular Endocrinology, since shortly after its inception in 1987, and in the case of JCEM, for a longer interval, since 1970. Our objective was to determine whether the increased collaboration that has occurred in research in recent decades translated into increased authors per research report. As shown in Figure 1, this is indeed the case, both in the more basic, molecular research reports published in Molecular Endocrinology (Figure 1A), and in the more clinical, human-based research reports published in JCEM (Figure 1B). An interesting finding that emerged from the data is that the concept seems to have been embraced in both basic and clinical research, as reflected in the numbers for the 2 journals. Moreover, at least for JCEM, the trend was as apparent between 1970 and 1990 as from 1990 to 2015; the rate of growth of author numbers is fairly linear, if not even greater in the earlier years, despite the fact that this concept has received much more attention in recent years. It appears that investigators, at least in the field of endocrinology, have recognized and acted upon the need for collaborative efforts in order to most effectively advance scientific discoveries even before the research community as a whole began to recognize and promote this need. Figure 1. Mean number of authors per publication for representative years in (A) Molecular Endocrinology and (B) The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism (JCEM). However, there have been and continue to be significant obstacles to collaboration within the academic environment. How can collaborators be identified? How can the scientific community facilitate the identification of collaborators and the establishment of productive collaborations? How can potential collaborators effectively work together as a highly functioning team? How can it be ensured that each member of the team gets appropriate recognition, required to support academic promotion and/or grant funding? The identification of collaborators has been facilitated by the formation of multidisciplinary research institutes within academic centers (1). Such institutes allow for easier sharing of advances in diverse disciplines and for the development of relationships between investigators in different disciplines. Additionally, in recent years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has specifically encouraged the submission and funding of multidisciplinary grants with multiprincipal investigators, specifically commenting that the goal is to maximize the potential of team science efforts (2, 3). Perhaps the greatest challenge, one that in some cases may actually lead to failure of collaborations to materialize, relates to authorship order (4). The “coin of the realm” for academics is in very large part publications and funding. More specifically, first and/or senior author publications and being the principal investigator on grants are of paramount importance. Limiting a manuscript to only one first author and one senior author and having only one principal investigator on a research grant may stifle what otherwise might be a very productive collaboration, in light of the expectations for leadership roles in publications and funding that are emphasized by many academic institutions for promotions and tenure. With respect to principal investigators on grants, the NIH has recognized this concern and, as noted above, in recent years has not only changed policy to allow co- or even multiprincipal investigators but, furthermore, has encouraged this practice. To address the issue of appropriate recognition of investigators with respect to authorship, we have seen what we refer to as “the rise of the asterisk” in the last few decades. This practice, which appears to be gaining more and more acceptance, attempts to share first and senior authorship by noting with an asterisk or similar symbol when authors have contributed equally to the research. In this issue of Molecular Endocrinology, there are 3 out 8 original research articles (and this editorial!) in which the investigators have chosen to designate sharing of first authorship. As long as this is done appropriately, it is to be commended. The Editorial Board of Molecular Endocrinology is very supportive of this approach to facilitate collaboration. Indeed, we feel it would be appropriate to have as an accepted convention that if 2 (or more) authors on a manuscript are designated as having contributed equally to the work, then each of these authors should be allowed to place their name ahead of the other(s) on their curriculum vitae. Other initiatives by the Endocrine Society that support greater emphasis on collaboration include a Translational Workshop at ENDO 2014 that emphasized the importance of collaborative team science in the current research environment and highlighted specifically the benefits of such team science approaches for translational research. This workshop was very successful and highly subscribed, pointing to the need for additional information and resources about how to identify collaborators, establish productive collaborations, and navigate the publication and funding issues. We must continue to support current and identify additional ways to foster collaborations and to find ways that we can recognize, and have academic institutions recognize, the individual contributions of collaborative team members. Such measures will support and expedite the translation of basic science discoveries into applications for the diagnosis, prevention, and therapy of human disease.