Authorship in Multicenter studies: GEMINI as an example.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Authorship APS Professional Skills Course:
Advertisements

Choosing a Journal APS Professional Skills Course: Writing and Reviewing for Scientific Journals.
The Art of Publishing Aka “just the facts ma’am”.
Cross Sectional Designs
Peter Griffith and Megan McGroddy 4 th NACP All Investigators Meeting February 3, 2013 Expectations and Opportunities for NACP Investigators to Share and.
Our First Interactive Learning Wall By Year 10 and Ms.Kirby.
Dr Ronni Michelle Greenwood Autumn  Introduction  Method  Results  Discussion.
Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act of 1996 HIPAA for Researchers: IRB Related Issues HSC USC IRB.
What makes a good project?.  A testing ground for concepts presented in the taught programme  An opportunity to demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge.
Dissertation Writing.
1 Use and content of the RFP  Request for Proposals (RFP) is similar to bidding documents and include all information of the assignment, selection of.
Authorship Kazem Heidari.
School Deans appoint a pool of evaluators who are trained by the Centre for University Teaching The staff member whose teaching is being evaluated is informed.
ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE PUBLICATION OF RESEARCH Muhammad Taher Abuelma’atti Department of Electrical Engineering King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals.
Columbia University IRB IRB 101 September 21, 2005 George Gasparis, Executive Director, CU IRB Asst. V.P. and Sr. Asst. Dean for Research Ethics.
Welcome to The Need To Know Team Meeting #8 The Need To Know: collaborative research by MCHP, rural and northern RHAs, and Manitoba Health Director: Dr.
Instructions for VCU’s Internal Approval Form Form is required to obtain Authorized Official’s signature on proposals and awards OSP – 8/2006.
Anatomy of a Manuscript How to write a manuscript in 19 sentences
1 NIH Public Access Policy Policy on Enhancing Public Access to Archived Publications Resulting From NIH-Funded Research (Public Access Policy)
Proposal Writing.
Central IRBs: Ceding IRB Oversight
NIH Data Sharing Policy University of Nebraska Medical Center.
Dr. Dinesh Kumar Assistant Professor Department of ENT, GMC Amritsar.
EARTO – working group on quality issues – 2 nd session Anneli Karttunen, Quality Manager VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland This presentation.
© Tesseract Management Systems / Managing by Design / THE COMPETITION QUESTION These slides are examples of how ‘The Competition Question’ can.
Proposal Development Sample Proposal Format Mahmoud K. El -Jafari College of Business and Economics Al-Quds University – Jerusalem April 11,2007.
ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines: Consensus Conference (CC) SOP Edited by EDC-SC September 2013.
NA-MIC National Alliance for Medical Image Computing Publications Guidelines Eric Grimson.
NIH Mentored Career Development Awards (K Series) Part 5 Thomas Mitchell, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics University of California San Francisco.
Presubmission Proposal Reviews at the College of Nursing (CON) Nancy T. Artinian, PhD, RN, FAAN Associate Dean for Research and Professor.
What makes a good project?.  A testing ground for concepts presented in the taught programme  An opportunity to demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge.
Responsible Conduct of Research Publications. Authorship Acknowledging contributors Conflicts of interest Overlapping publications
March 2, 2008 – GEC #2 Newcomerswww.geni.net1 The GPO Solicitation Process Feedback encouraged Chip Elliott GENI Project Director Clearing.
MedEdPORTAL Reviewer Tutorial Contact MedEdPORTAL
How to write a professional paper. 1. Developing a concept of the paper 2. Preparing an outline 3. Writing the first draft 4. Topping and tailing 5. Publishing.
Acknowledgements and Conflicts of interest Dr Gurpreet Kaur Associate Professor Dept of Pharmacology Government Medical College Amritsar.
What does peer review involve? Here are some of the aspects of the research that are scrutinised: Originality of the research The appropriateness of the.
1.  Interpretation refers to the task of drawing inferences from the collected facts after an analytical and/or experimental study.  The task of interpretation.
AuthorAID Workshop on Research Writing Tanzania June 2010.
NCATE STANDARD I STATUS REPORT  Hyacinth E. Findlay  March 1, 2007.
Authorship Criteria; Updated Version 2013 By: Behrooz Astaneh MD Founder and Head, Medical Journalism Department Visiting Editor, BMJ COPE Council Member.
Authorship, peer review and conflicts of interest.
WLUSA/OSSTF Annual Performance Review Process Human Resources & WLUSA| 2015.
In the Name of God. Topics for discussion Authors ( Pysically ! ) - Title page - Different journal formats.
Approach to Research Papers Pardis Esmaeili, B.S. Valcour Lab Mentoring Toolbox Valcour Lab Mentoring Toolbox2015.
The NCI Central IRB Initiative Jacquelyn L. Goldberg, J.D. VA IRB Chair Training April 8, 2004.
Traditional Distribution Electronic Distribution User Florida Entomologist Issues Reprints FTP.
In the Name of God. Acknowledgement and Appendix A. Shirani.
Science & Engineering Research Support soCiety Guest Editor Guidelines for Special Issue 1. Quality  Papers must be double -blind.
Scope of the Journal The International Journal of Sports Medicine (IJSM) provides a forum for the publication of papers dealing with basic or applied information.
Today: Authorship and Conflicts of Interest Homework #7 (due 10/26 or 27) Notebooks will be turned when you turn in your inquiry 3 proposal.
1 TenStep Project Management Process ™ PM00.5 PM00.5 Project Management Preparation for Success * Manage Scope *
Chapter 4 – Settling Disputes.  Effective community advocates work to solve problems in the community by proposing and lobbying for better laws and public.
Pilot Grant Program EGAD Study OCCUPATIONAL & ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH.
UNIVERSITY OF DAR ES SALAAM t Selection and Employment of Consultants Negotiations with Consultants; Monitoring Performance of Consultants; Resolving Disputes.
Copyright © 2015 Inter-American Development Bank. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons IGO 3.0 Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives (CC-IGO.
Collecting Copyright Transfers and Disclosures via Editorial Manager™ -- Editorial Office Guide 2015.
Community Integrity Building (CIB) & Social Accountability Activities for Students and Citizens Ellen Goldberg Programme Director Integrity Education July.
Support National Social Protection Strategy (NSPS) CARD/SPCU 1.
CDISC SDS Oncology Domains: An Orientation to Aid Review & Feedback Barrie Nelson CDISC SDS Oncology Sub Team Lead
UPV RESEARCHERS’ MENTORING INITIATIVE (07 March 2012) By: Dr. Ricardo Babaran Dr. Rosalie Arcala Hall Dr. Wilfredo Campos.
Convener – Wendy da Cruz SAATCA 13 th International Auditor Convention Global Methodologies and Tools.
Your Rights as a Scholarly Author: Negotiation and Strategy.
Annex III to BS/SC/PDF/A(2003)1
Mojtaba Farjam, MD PhD, member of ethics committee for research
Thomas Mitchell, MA, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
What is recrutimemt?.
Writing to Learn vs. Writing in the Disciplines
What the Editors want to see!
Thomas Mitchell, MA, MPH Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics
Presentation transcript:

Authorship in Multicenter studies: GEMINI as an example

In multicenter trials, all members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the criteria for authorship. In multicenter trials, all members of the group who are named as authors should fully meet the criteria for authorship. Group members who do not meet these criteria should be listed, with their permission, in the Acknowledgments or in an appendix. Group members who do not meet these criteria should be listed, with their permission, in the Acknowledgments or in an appendix. The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the Principal Investigators (PI’s) based on the coauthors’ opinions. The order of authorship on the byline should be a joint decision of the Principal Investigators (PI’s) based on the coauthors’ opinions. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed. Authors should be prepared to explain the order in which authors are listed.

It is agreed that all authors in publications from GEMINI should meet the criteria for authorship mentioned in Uniform Requirements. It is agreed that all authors in publications from GEMINI should meet the criteria for authorship mentioned in Uniform Requirements. In each manuscript “prominent” authorship is defined as first, second, and last authors. In each manuscript “prominent” authorship is defined as first, second, and last authors. Two categories of manuscripts will be prepared from GEMINI data and each will have a separate, yet basically similar, process for authorship assignment. Two categories of manuscripts will be prepared from GEMINI data and each will have a separate, yet basically similar, process for authorship assignment.

A. Major manuscripts A. Major manuscripts –These are manuscripts which report on major findings of the study as a whole. They are the key articles of the research and their number will not exceed 2 for case-control and 2 for cohort studies. –Authorship in these manuscripts will be as inclusive as possible. The group of principal investigators will assign the writing and analysis team. This team will include at least one person from each institution. –The byline will include (without order): PI’s, writing and analysis team, main investigators and field personnel actively involved in data collection management and/or supervision, investigators, laboratory personnel actively involved in sample analysis management and/or supervision, members of GEMINI-affiliated groups who have substantially participated in activities delineated by Uniform Requirements (vide supra), and any other person(s) who meet authorship criteria defined above. –Each manuscript will have three prominent authors Each institution (namely DDRC, NCI and IARC) will have one position as a prominent author upon agreement.

B. Focused manuscripts B. Focused manuscripts –These are manuscripts which report: 1. findings regarding a special group of variables, 2. manuscripts reporting findings in a special group of patients, 3. secondary analyses testing new hypotheses based on available data, 4. new analyses/data performed on samples/study subjects to test newly-developed hypotheses, 5. any other which report a special aspect or group in the study.

These manuscripts might follow two courses:These manuscripts might follow two courses: –b-1. A focused manuscript might be suggested to the PI’s by a GEMINI colleague or group. The person(s) suggesting such manuscript should submit a one or two page proposal. The proposal should briefly explain objectives of the manuscript/analysis, methods used, why they feel it is appropriate, a timetable and the final byline (this may include the idea owner as the first author, or in case of a group of idea owners as prominent authors). –PI’s can add names of people they feel have been actively related to the analysis/writing proposed, but these may not be added as prominent authors.

–b-2. A focused manuscript might be suggested by PI’s to a GEMINI colleague or group. –In this case the assigned person (assignee), if accepts to write the manuscript, will prepare a byline proposal and a timetable. –The byline should include at least the assigning PI (preferably all PI’s), and the prominent authorship will be a matter of agreement between the assignee and PI’s. Names and order of coauthors will also be agreed on. –PI’s may include people who do not participate in analysis/writing, but have been directly involved in the work reported by the focused manuscript.

Special considerations Special considerations –a. Joiners: a joiner is a person who joins the GEMINI team during the course of study or manuscript composition. A joiner will only be included in the byline for a major manuscript if his activity has an impact on the content of the manuscript. There is no limit in their participation in focused manuscripts, either as idea owners or assignees. –b. Leavers: leavers are GEMINI colleagues who cannot, for various reasons, continue their cooperation with the study. These may be included as authors of major and focused manuscripts, depending on the share they have had in the study and the duration of their cooperation. –c. Group authorship: if PI’s perceive that the number of authors for a major manuscript exceeds an acceptable standard (e.g. 25 authors), they may decide to mention three prominent and “the GEMINI group”. Names and affiliation of the group members will be included in the manuscript. –d. Acknowledgement: colleagues actively helping in sample collection, analysis and technical work, who do not meet authorship criteria may be thanked at the end of the manuscript.