1. RCR Workshop on Authorship and Peer Review
Carol Lange, Reuben Harris, Cliff Steer, and Victor Barocas
August 23rd, 2016

3. Authorship issues Who should be listed as an author?
What is the appropriate order of authors?
What is the appropriate number of authors?
When is it appropriate to have shared first authorship?
Is it appropriate to change the order of authors on your CV (in the case of shared first authorship)?

4. Who should be listed as an author?
Department chair who provided the funding for the project but was not otherwise involved?
Individual who did the majority of the work and drafted the paper
Individual who did the technical work
Individual who developed a technique that was needed to generate the results
Individual who wrote one small section of the paper
PhD committee member who attended committee meetings and helped generate ideas for the project.
Individual who donates reagents (e.g., antibodies) for the project, particularly if these are not commercially available.
The statistician who helped with data analysis.
Pathologist who is hired to evaluate tissues for the project.

5. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
All persons designated as authors should qualify for authorship. Each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take public responsibility for it. Authorship credit should be based only on substantial contributions to (a) conception and design or analysis and interpretation of data; (b) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (c) approval of the final version to be published.
Ann Intern Med 1988;108:258-65

6. Who should be listed as an author?
Substantial contribution to the development of the paper
Initiate or develop the central ideas that are discussed
Designed the research plan and/or developed the funding for the research program
Person responsible for gathering the data
Person who actually writes the paper
Consider the technician who contributes to an analysis, refines or improves the analysis, and also discusses with the research staff how the results of the analysis affects the hypothesis under study

7. Authorship
All authors should qualify for authorship based on the quantity and quality of their substantial contribution to the research and to their willingness to take public responsibility for, and the ability to defend, their contribution to the publication.
Individuals who do not qualify for authorship but who may have provided critical scientific advice, manuscript review, technical support, or other material input into the work should always be considered for formal acknowledgment.
Check instructions for authors of the journal to which the manuscript will be submitted for additional guidance.

8. Pathology example
Lead research scientist financially contracted for the services of pathology at a contract research organization
Pathology findings came back as no lesions present (normal tissues)
Pathologist not listed as an author
Based on the journal peer review of the submitted manuscript, additional comment and explanation were required from the pathologist
Should the pathologist have initially been an author?
Should the pathologist now be listed as an author?

9. Authorship
Does the fact that an individual is paid for doing the work disqualify that individual from authorship?
Bioinformaticians?
Mouse Genomics Core Staff?

10. It sort of makes you stop and think, doesn’t it?

11. Order of authorship
Should be decided among the author group before the paper is written
Usually, individual who has primary responsibility for writing the paper is first author
Advisor or head of laboratory usually is last author.

12. Number of authors
Over time, the number of authors for a single manuscript has increased.
Can all critical contributors be authors?

13. Shared first authorship
When is this appropriate?
Is it ethical to change the order of authorship on an individual’s CV in the case of shared first authorship?

14. Multiple Publication?
Is it ethical to submit two identical research abstracts with identical authors to two different research symposia or scientific meetings? (published vs. unpublished?)
Copyright – is it ethical (or legal) to “self-plagiarize” by “recycling” the same or very similar wording?
Consider citing original publication or re-phrasing portions that are “re-used” or when conveying very similar ideas.

15. Avoid Self-Plagiarizing
Once something is published, the author does not own the text.
Re-using text in a different paper submitted to a journal from a different publisher is a copyright violation (unless permission was obtained to re-use the text).
Make significant and substantive changes
Cite the original text

16. Most scientists regarded the new peer review process
as “quite an improvement”

17. The Manuscript Review Process Overview
Authors submit to journal
Editorial triage (some journals)
Pre-submission inquiry process
Most journals now utilize plagiarism software
Editors invite 2-3 reviewers
Title, authors, & abstract typically given
Reviewers must agree to Confidentiality
Reviewers must decline if there is a Conflict of Interest
Many journals invite authors to submit the names of potential reviewers to invite or exclude
Reviewers are given days to review a manuscript
Comments are given, typically two types: To authors, To editors (confidential)
Most journals also ask reviewers to recommend a decision
Comments are reviewed by the editors and forwarded to the authors with a decision (Accept, accept with revisions, return for revisions, reject)
The EDITOR makes the final decision
Authors can request a decision be reconsidered by the editors

18. Confidentiality Do not share the manuscript
Do not share your knowledge of the manuscript, contents or status
During or after the process
Destroy the manuscript when the review is completed

19. Conflict of Interest
Do I have financial connections that constitute a real or apparent conflict of interest? (i.e. I am the inventor of a vaccine that is being tested in this study)
Do I have a relationship with one of the authors that might predjudice the review positively or negatively?
Is the author affiliated with my own institution?

20. Summary of Peer Review Professionalism in peer review is essential
Maintain anonymity
Avoid personal or disparaging comments
Give constructive criticism (improve the work)
Do not indicate your opinion about a decision unless asked (this is the editors prerogative)
If you suspect misconduct, contact the editor. (do not insert comments to or contact the authors if you suspect misconduct)
Peer review is a valuable service to your field

21. References
Maronpot RR. Responsible authorship and publication practices. Toxicol Pathol 2011;30:
Hurko O, et al. The ADNI publication policy: Commensurate recognition of critical contributors who are not authors. Neuroimage 2012;59:
A refresher in research publication ethics. Public Health Nutrition 2012;15(3):
Goldrick BA, et al. Guide to writing for publication in AJIC: American Journal of Infection Control. Am J Infect Control 1999;27:35-46.