↓ Skip to main content

Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, October 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
27 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
41 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
76 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Five-step authorship framework to improve transparency in disclosing contributors to industry-sponsored clinical trial publications
Published in
BMC Medicine, October 2014
DOI 10.1186/s12916-014-0197-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ana Maruš.ić, Darko Hren, Bernadette Mansi, Neil Lineberry, Ananya Bhattacharya, Maureen Garrity, Juli Clark, Thomas Gesell, Susan Glasser, John Gonzalez, Carolyn Hustad, Mary-Margaret Lannon, LaVerne A Mooney, Teresa Peña

Abstract

Authorship guidelines have established criteria to guide author selection based on significance of contribution and helped to define associated responsibilities and accountabilities for the published findings. However, low awareness, variable interpretation, and inconsistent application of these guidelines can lead to confusion and a lack of transparency when recognizing those who merit authorship. This article describes a research project led by the Medical Publishing Insights and Practices (MPIP) Initiative to identify current challenges when determining authorship for industry-sponsored clinical trials and develop an improved approach to facilitate decision-making when recognizing authors from related publications. A total of 498 clinical investigators, journal editors, publication professionals and medical writers were surveyed to understand better how they would adjudicate challenging, real-world authorship case scenarios, determine the perceived frequency of each scenario and rate their confidence in the responses provided. Multiple rounds of discussions about these results with journal editors, clinical investigators and industry representatives led to the development of key recommendations intended to enhance transparency when determining authorship. These included forming a representative group to establish authorship criteria early in a trial, having all trial contributors agree to these criteria and documenting trial contributions to objectively determine who warrants an invitation to participate in the manuscript development process. The resulting Five-step Authorship Framework is designed to create a more standardized approach when determining authorship for clinical trial publications. Overall, these recommendations aim to facilitate more transparent authorship decisions and help readers better assess the credibility of results and perspectives of the authors for medical research more broadly.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 27 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 76 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 3%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 73 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 14 18%
Researcher 7 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 6 8%
Student > Master 6 8%
Professor 6 8%
Other 22 29%
Unknown 15 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 38%
Social Sciences 9 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 12 16%
Unknown 19 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 25. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 November 2014.
All research outputs
#1,416,487
of 24,287,598 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#989
of 3,730 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,430
of 265,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#29
of 89 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,287,598 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,730 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 45.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,875 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 89 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.