Medical Journal Editors Research Articles

Authorship and Citizen Science: Seven Heuristic Rules

Citizen science (CS) is an umbrella term for research with a significant amount of contributions from volunteers. Those volunteers can occupy a hybrid role, being both ‘researcher’ and ‘subject’ at the same time. This has repercussions for questions about responsibility and credit, e.g. pertaining to the issue of authorship. In this paper, we first review some existing guidelines for authorship and their applicability to CS. Second, we assess the claim that the guidelines from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), known as ‘the Vancouver guidelines’, may lead to exclusion of deserving citizen scientists as authors. We maintain that the idea of including citizen scientists as authors is supported by at least two arguments: transparency and fairness. Third, we argue that it might be plausible to include groups as authors in CS. Fourth and finally, we offer a heuristic list of seven recommendations to be considered when deciding about whom to include as an author of a CS publication.

Report on the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Journal Editors 2024 Conference

Report on the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Journal Editors 2024 Conference

Two-fractionated stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy for patients with prostate cancer (SMART PRO trial): protocol for a confirmatory clinical trial

IntroductionIn an MRI-guided linear accelerator (MR-LINAC) system, the planned doses for organs at risk and for tumours are assessed by MR imaging and re-contouring at every treatment. This allows treatment...

The Detection of ChatGPT’s Textual Crumb Trails is an Unsustainable Solution to Imperfect Detection Methods

Abstract A recent disruptive innovation to scientific publishing is OpenAI’s ChatGPT, a large language model. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and COPE, and COPE member journals or publishers, set limitations to ChatGPT’s involvement in academic writing, requesting authors to declare its use. Those guidelines are practically useless because they ignore two fundamentals: first, academics who cheat to achieve success will not declare the use of ChatGPT; second, they fail to explicitly assign the responsibility of detection to editors, journals, and publishers. Using two primers, i.e., residual text that may reflect traces of ChatGPT’s output but that authors may have forgotten to remove from their articles, this commentary draws readers’ attention to 46 open-access examples sourced from PubPeer. Even though editors should be obliged to investigate such cases, a primer-based detection of ChatGPT’s textual crumb trails is only a temporary measure and not a sustainable solution because it relies on the detection of carelessness.

"Making Space for More People, More Perspectives, and More Ideas": How Medical Education Journal Editors View Their Role in Capacity Building.

Medical education journal editors work to improve scholarly rigor and expand access to scholarship. How editors conceptualize these dual roles is unknown and holds implications for the kinds of scholarship that are valued and made visible through publication. The authors applied the concept of capacity building to examine how medical education journal editors conceptualize and operationalize capacity building and to identify the contextual factors that support or constrain these efforts. Using a reflexive thematic approach, the authors interviewed 13 editors of 11 medical education journals between February 2022 and March 2023. Data collection and analyses were performed iteratively. Interview transcripts were coded by 2 authors to generate initial codes, which were then refined by the research team until final themes were created. Editors viewed capacity building "making space" for people and perspectives. Making space for people included efforts to support editors and reviewers, offer feedback to authors, and engage with readers. Making space for perspectives included efforts to promote discussion on diversity and inclusion and to introduce ideas perceived to advance the field. How editors made space was shaped by a journal's ecosystem, including local features unique to each journal (e.g., aims, scope, readership) and system-level factors that influenced all journals (e.g., English as the language of science, academic promotion and tenure). Although medical education journal editors' capacity-building work will inevitably guide future scholars and scholarship, their work should be considered in the context of a larger ecosystem, including such features as institutional academies for scholarship and promotion and tenure policies. Improving rigor and expanding access will require clarifying how editors' approach and understand capacity building to advance as a field. Future work should clarify how individual journals' capacity-building efforts can be facilitated and how journals can collectively reimagine spaces for knowledge-building conversations.

Research integrity in Instructions for Authors in Japanese medical journals using ICMJE Recommendations: A descriptive literature study.

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals. These provide a global standard for writing and editing medical articles, including research integrity. However, no study has examined the research integrity-related content of Japanese medical journals' Instructions for Authors. We therefore compared research integrity content in ICMJE member journals with those in the English- and Japanese-language journals of the Japanese Association of Medical Sciences (JAMS). This was a descriptive literature study. We obtained Instructions for Authors from English- and Japanese-language journals listed on the JAMS website and the ICMJE member journals listed on the ICMJE website as of September 1, 2021. We compared the presence of 20 topics (19 in the ICMJE Recommendations plus compliance with ICMJE) in the Instructions for Authors, and analyzed the content of the conflict of interest disclosure. We evaluated 12 ICMJE member journals, and 82 English-language and 99 Japanese-language subcommittee journals. The median number of topics covered was 10.5 for ICMJE member journals, 10 for English-language journals, and three for Japanese-language journals. Compliance with ICMJE was mentioned by 10 (83%) ICMJE member journals, 75 (91%) English-language journals, and 29 (29%) Japanese-language journals. The ICMJE Conflicts of Interest Disclosure Form was requested by seven (64%) ICMJE member journals, 15 (18%) English-language journals, and one (1%) Japanese-language journal. Although the topics in the JAMS English-language journals resembled those in the ICMJE member journals, the median value of ICMJE-related topic inclusion was approximately one-third lower in JAMS Japanese-language journals than in ICMJE member journals. It is hoped that Japanese-language journals whose conflict of interest disclosure policies differ from ICMJE standards will adopt international standards to deter misconduct and ensure publication quality.

Harnessing policy to promote inclusive medical product evidence: development of a reference standard and structured audit of clinical trial diversity policies

ObjectiveTo develop a reference standard based on US Food and Drug Administration and stakeholder guidance for pharmaceutical companies' policies on diversity in clinical trials and to assess these policies.DesignDevelopment of...

Effects of interacting with a large language model compared with a human coach on the clinical diagnostic process and outcomes among fourth-year medical students: study protocol for a prospective, randomised experiment using patient vignettes

IntroductionVersatile large language models (LLMs) have the potential to augment diagnostic decision-making by assisting diagnosticians, thanks to their ability to engage in open-ended, natural conversations and their comprehensive knowledge access....

Acknowledgments through the prism of the ICMJE and ChatGPT

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines are widely employed as an set of ethical standards for biomedical journals, and thus for biomedical researchers. In this paper, we revisit the topic of acknowledgements in academic papers, noting that the former serve as a lesser form of recognition relative to authorship. We note the possible existence of bias, such as a power imbalance due to a status imbalance, as well as the risk of “ghost” acknowledgements. To further ground our ideas, we turned to ChatGPT-4 for input, noting some curious and informative supplementary findings. Curiously, ChatGPT-4 offered a set of recommendations and guidance, comparable to those of the ICMJE.

The importance of clinical trial protocols

The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and the World Health Organization (WHO) define a clinical trial as any research that prospectively assigns participants or groups of human subjects to one or more interventions (medicines, procedures, devices, behavioral treatments, dietary supplements and diets, for example). These trials aim to evaluate the effects of interventions on human health. Prospective clinical research is essential for discovering new knowledge, improving the scientific base, solving challenges, and improving clinical practices. The basic principles for a successful researcher include interest, availability, persistence, and honesty. However, it is essential that, first of all, one has complete and detailed knowledge of scientific writing and preparation of the research protocol.

Gift and ghost authorship and the use of authorship guidelines in psychology journals: A cross-sectional survey

More than 800 (co-)authors participated in a large-scale cross-sectional survey on inappropriate attribution of authorship and the use of explicit authorship guidelines in psychological science (response rate 29.6%, predominantly from Europe and North America). Almost half of the respondents had been involved in a study where someone was added as an author who did not contribute substantially (gift authorship) at least a few times. Being involved in a study where someone was not listed as an author when they contributed substantially (ghost authorship) was experienced considerably less frequently. In approximately half of the respondents’ research settings, the use of explicit authorship guidelines is actively encouraged, leading to more frequent discussion of authorship in earlier stages, as well as to the perception of authorship decisions as fairer. Encouraging the use of explicit authorship guidelines is a simple yet effective intervention. Importantly, the American Psychological Association’s (APA) authorship guidelines are considerably more lenient than the widely used criteria of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Four-year assessment of masticatory function in mandibular overdenture wearers: A randomised clinical trial comparing two to four implants to retain the prosthesis.

Limited data exist on the mid- to long-term masticatory capacity of mandibular overdenture (IOD) wearers, particularly regarding the use of posterior implants to retention. To periodically evaluate mastication of IOD wearers, comparing the effectiveness of two to four implants to retain the prosthesis. In a randomised controlled clinical trial, 20 complete edentulous patients (14 women), aged 51-84 years (mean age 69.1 ± 9.6), received new bimaxillary complete dentures (CD). After adaptation, baseline measurements of masticatory performance (X50) and swallowing threshold were conducted using the sieving method. Patients were then randomly assigned to groups: control (two intra-foraminal regular implants) and experimental (two intra-foraminal regular implants and two extra-short posterior implants) (n = 10 each). After 4 months, implants were splinted, and a new mandibular IOD was fabricated with bar/clip retention. Mastication was reassessed after 6, 12, and 48 months, and data analysed with repeated measures ANOVA and Sidak's post hoc (α = 0.05). Despite a loss of two patients per group, masticatory performance significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation (p = .031) in both groups (p = .670). A second improvement was observed after 6 months (p = .027), with no subsequent changes (p > .05). Swallowing threshold improvements were noted with IOD, and no discernible differences between groups were observed (p > .05). Masticatory function significantly improved after mandibular IOD installation, with the number of implants demonstrating minimal influence. The present study was not registered in a public database, as mandated. It is important to note that the recommendation for registration was initiated in 2017 by the Committee of Medical Journal Editors, while patient inclusion in the research took place in 2016. Given that the data presented in this manuscript cover a follow-up period of up to 4 years post-surgical intervention, delayed registration was not feasible.

Journal requirement for data sharing statements in clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

ObjectivesData sharing statements are considered routine in clinical trial reporting and represent a step toward data transparency. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) required clinical trials to publish data sharing statements. We aimed to assess the requirement for data sharing statements of individual participant data by biomedical journals and explore associations between journal characteristics and journal requirements for data sharing statements. Study Design and SettingIn this cross-sectional study, we included all biomedical journals that published clinical trials from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2022, and that were indexed by the Journal Citation Reports. The study outcome was the journal requirement for data sharing statements. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between journal characteristics and requirement for data sharing statements. ResultsOf the 3229 biomedical journals included in the analysis, 2345 (72.6%) required authors to include data sharing statements. Journals published in the UK (OR, 3.19 [95% CI, 2.43-4.22]) and endorsing the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (OR, 3.30 [95% CI, 2.78-3.92]) had greater odds of requiring data sharing statements. Journals that were open access, non-English language, in the Journal Citation Reports group of clinical medicine, and on the ICMJE list had lower odds of requiring data sharing statements, with ORs ranging from 0.18 to 0.81. ConclusionDespite ICMJE recommendations, more than 27% of the biomedical journals that published clinical trials did not require clinical trials to include data sharing statements, highlighting room for improved transparency.

ICMJE recommendations update: What’s new?

In January 2024, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) updated their “Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals.” The updates relate to authorship, artificial intelligence (AI), environmental sustainability, funding, ethics, and referencing.

Influence of a polymorphic genes combination on the risk of developing intestinal infections, induction of regulatory and effector peptides

Background. The high incidence rate, the severity and the occurrence of complications determine the relevance of intestinal infections today. The individual’s immune response, which is controlled by the polymorphism of inflammatory protein genes is significant in the development and course of the disease. This issue in relation to intestinal infections has been understudied and is of interest in researching the influence of gene polymorphism on the development of intestinal infections.The aim. To establish the presence of an associative relationship between the set of IL-2 T330G and TLR-4 ASP299GLY polymorphic genes and the likelihood of developing an acute intestinal infection, as well as the role of a combination of genes in induction of inflammatory proteins.Materials and methods. The study included 108 people with acute intestinal infection and 94 apparently healthy volunteers. To determine the concentration of cytokines, immunoglobulins, we used blood serum and Vector-Best (Koltsovo, Russian Federation) test systems. The polymorphism of the IL-2 T330G and TLR-4 ASP299GLY genes was determined by PCR using Litekh LLC (Moscow, Russian Federation) primers. Statistical analysis was carried out using the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) principle and SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in Published Literature) recommendations by MS Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corp., USA) and Statistica 6.0 (StatSoft Inc., USA) software.Results. When constructing the ROC curve, the area under the curve was within 0.77, sensitivity – 0.9, specificity – 0.5 (95% confidence interval: 0.7–0.84; p < 0.001). These results are at a good prognostic level with a high risk of the disease development. Comparing the level of pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory cytokines, immunoglobulins between the patients with -299А/А+-330GG haplotype of TLR4 ASP299GLY and IL-2 T330G genes and the carriers of only the dominant allele A of the TLR4 A/A299 genotype or only the minor allele G of IL-2 G/G330 we found no significant differences (p ≥ 0.05).Conclusion. Among carriers of the -299А/А+-330GG haplotype of the TLR4 ASP299GLY and IL-2 T330G genes, the risk of the intestinal infection development increases, but this haplotype does not affect the production of inflammatory molecules.

Perspectives on the role of industry in informatics research and authorship.

Advances in informatics research come from academic, nonprofit, and for-profit industry organizations, and from academic-industry partnerships. While scientific studies of commercial products may offer critical lessons for the field, manuscripts authored by industry scientists are sometimes categorically rejected. We review historical context, community perceptions, and guidelines on informatics authorship. We convened an expert panel at the American Medical Informatics Association 2022 Annual Symposium to explore the role of industry in informatics research and authorship with community input. The panel summarized session themes and prepared recommendations. Authorship for informatics research, regardless of affiliation, should be determined by International Committee of Medical Journal Editors uniform requirements for authorship. All authors meeting criteria should be included, and categorical rejection based on author affiliation is unethical. Informatics research should be evaluated based on its scientific rigor; all sources of bias and conflicts of interest should be addressed through disclosure and, when possible, methodological mitigation.

A simple form could prevent authorship issues in Cochrane manuscripts: A cohort study

AbstractAimWe aimed to investigate authorship issues after the implementation of an authorship declaration form in a Cochrane Review Group.MethodsThe Cochrane Colorectal Group uses an authorship declaration form that consists of three parts: (1) manuscript information, (2) documentation for roles according to the four authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and (3) identification information of individual authors and signed approval. The manuscripts' contact authors were responsible for collecting the forms from all coauthors. This observational cohort study reports on all authorship issues in authorship declaration forms collected from February 2020 to December 2023.ResultsWe received 276/277 authorship declaration forms or replies from authors (response rate 99.6%) from 44 manuscripts, including 52% protocols and 48% reviews. There were authorship issues present in 14/44 (32%) of the manuscripts, and the most common issue was that not all authors fulfilled all four ICMJE authorship criteria. Six gift authors were removed from by‐lines. Issues in nine of the 14 manuscripts were resolved by the author group when informing them about the ICMJE authorship criteria and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The issues in the remaining five manuscripts were unresolved since the manuscripts were transferred or rejected, thus, ceased to be developed by the Cochrane Colorectal Group.ConclusionAuthorship issues were raised in almost one‐third of manuscripts. Most issues were resolved and six gift authorships were prevented. The awareness of authorship criteria is sharpened when all authors are individually asked to fill out and sign a form. This could help decrease the rate of unethical authorships in Cochrane publications and contribute to more ethical and robust evidence production.

Guest Author and Ghost Author: My Experience as an Editor of a Medical Journal

The author (s) of a scientific article should have contributed to a research article in a meaningful and substantive way. A person who contributes to the research but whose name is excluded from the authors’ list is known as a ghost author. Whereas a guest author doesn’t contribute in a meaningful way to the research and preparation of the manuscript, however, appears on the author's byline. Often, guest authors are influential persons invited by the principal author to get favours later. Gift authorship often involves mutual authorship among the articles of colleagues and vice-versa. The Inclusion of ghost authors, guests, or gift authors is common in the district town’s journal of Noakhali. This article was written to express my ten years of experience regarding the malpractices of authorship of a medical journal as an editor of a medical journal. It is a common phenomenon that after a few days of submitting an article to the editor’s office, the principal author requests to insert another author or to change the order of the author’s position. Members of the editorial board and reviewer of the article insert their names as authors violating the ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) guidelines. Course on authorship should be almost important to change the trend of our current culture in publishing articles, especially district medical college Journals.

Ethically Determining the Authorship of Health Science Research Publications: A Scoping Review

Authorship is a significant aspect of scientific research publications, serving as a primary means of acknowledging the intellectual contributions of individuals and shaping career trajectories. However, determining authorship ethically and fairly in health science research remains a complex and multifaceted issue. This scoping review aims to explore the existing literature surrounding ethical considerations associated with authorship determination in health science research publications, published between 1989 and 2023. A total of 25 studies met the inclusion criteria. The findings revealed that ethical authorship practices in health science research are complex and multifaceted. This review emphasized how crucial it is to have precise rules and guidelines for deciding who is the author in academic journals, research institutes, and societies. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has published several ethical principles to address the difficulties associated with authorship determination. Still, there are differences and disagreements in how these rules are interpreted and applied, which could present moral enigmas. The review also examines new ethical issues arising from multidisciplinary and collaborative research, such as the responsibilities and funding of industry collaborations, shared authorship, and acknowledging the contributions of other groups. Maintaining the integrity of health science research and encouraging responsible collaboration requires making sure that authorship determination is transparent, equitable, and accountable. Authors should disclose any conflicts of interest that could influence their judgment or interpretation of the research findings.

Mega-authorship implications: How many scientists can fit into one cell?

ABSTRACT The past 20 years has seen a significant increase in articles with 500 or more authors. This increase has presented problems in terms of determining true authorship versus other types of contribution, issues with database metadata and data output, and publication length. Using items with 500+ authors deemed as mega-author titles, a total of 5,533 mega-author items were identified using InCites. Metadata about the items was then gathered from Web of Science and Scopus. Close examination of these items found that the vast majority of these covered physics topics, with medicine a far distant second place and only minor representation from other science fields. This mega-authorship saw significant events that appear to correspond to similar events in the Large Hadron Collider’s timeline, indicating that the projects for the collider are driving this heavy output. Some solutions are offered for the problems resulting from this phenomenon, partially driven by recommendations from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.