[ Editorial | Comments | Submit a Comment ]

Guest Editorial

Publishing with Students—An Uncontrolled Variable

Nurse researchers who plan to publish with their students are confronted with numerous issues about authorship for which there is little guidance. Many of us have followed the same authorship guidelines and conventions as our colleagues in medical research only to witness accounts of how that system is "broken" (Smith, 1997a). Expositions of honorary, obligatory, gift, ghost, and dissenting authors in the medical literature continue (Flanagan, Carey, Fontanarosa, Phillips, Pace et al. 1998; Horton, 2002; Shapiro, Wegner, Shapiro, 1994; Togoni & Roncaglioni, 1995). Data are lacking to refute similar occurrences in the nursing literature.

If these issues could be attributed to a few rogue authors, we could censure them and return to our writing. However, similar issues arise in most co-authored research manuscripts. The criteria for authorship supported by the International Academy of Nursing Editors are similar to those adopted by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, 1985; King, McGuire, Longman, Carroll-Johnson, 1997; Nativo, 1993). They recommend that authorship credit be determined by the investigators and based on substantial contribution to conceiving and designing the study, analyzing or interpreting the data, and writing or critically reviewing and approving the manuscript. The requirement of meeting all of these criteria has been criticized as inappropriate; too restrictive (especially for junior team members); and out of touch with the realities of multi-disciplinary team research and the critical but limited contributions of "specialist" team members (Bhopal, Rankin, McColl, Thomas, Kaner et al., 1997). A few prominent medical journals are trialing a new system that recognizes contributors and guarantors rather than authors (Rennie, Yank, & Emanuel, 1997; Smith, 1997b).

One questions whether these authorship criteria are appropriate for a student member of a research team. If faculty researchers "adjust" the definition of "substantive" for the contributions of student authors as compared to those of the experienced members of the research team, are they guilty of bestowing gift authorship? Should there be separate criteria and bylines for student authors? Student authorship is further obscured when the student is employed by the faculty researcher. How student-worker contributions differ from salaried staff is unclear.

Others problems arise for faculty researchers and student advisees when students fail to disseminate the results of their studies in a timely way - or ever. Some faculty researchers have developed authorship agreements with students and specify a deadline for receipt of a draft manuscript suitable for publication after which first authorship automatically transfers to the faculty researcher. Developing an authorship agreement prior to a study is commendable and anticipates student performance. Authorship agreements can state terms for renegotiation and for faculty input needed to support writing and publication. To avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding, authorship agreements must be detailed and address common variations.

For those who reject the historical view that student researchers are apprentices whose contributions merit no more than a fine-print note in the Acknowledgment section, alternatives and guidance are lacking. As faculty researchers grapple with the current criteria for authors and the new paradigm for contributors, it is evident that publishing with students is another variable in the research process in need of better control.

Donna Zimmaro Bliss, PhD, RN, FAAN
Associate Editor

References

Bhopal, R., Rankin, J., McColl, E., Thomas, L., Kaner, E., Stacy, R. et al. (1997). The vexed question of authorship: Views of researchers in a British medical faculty. British Medical Journal, 314, 1009-12.

Flanagin, A., Carey, L. A., Fontanarosa, P. B., Phillips, S. G., Pace, B. P., Lundberg, G. D. et al. (1998). Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. Journal of the American Medical Association, 280, 222-4.

Horton, R. (2002). The hidden research paper. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287, 2775-8.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (1985). Guidelines on authorship. British Medical Journal, 291, 722.

King, C. R., McGuire, D. B., Longman, A. J., & Carroll-Johnson, R. M. (1997). Peer review, authorship, ethics, and conflict of interest. Image - Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 29, 163-7.

Nativo, D. G. (1993). Authorship. Image: Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 25, 358.

Rennie, D., Yank, V., & Emanuel, L. (1997). When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributors accountable. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278, 579-85.

Shapiro, D. W., Wenger, N. S., & Shapiro, M. F. (1994). The contributions of authors to multi-authored biomedical research papers. Journal of the American Medical Association, 271, 438-42.

Smith, R. (1997a). Authorship: time for a paradigm shift? British Medical Journal, 314, 997.

Smith, R. (1997b). Authorship is dying: long live contributorship. British Medical Journal, 314, 696.

Tognoni, G., & Roncaglioni, M. C. (1995). Dissent: An alternative interpretation of MAST-I. Multicentre acute stroke trial - Italy group. Lancet, 346, 1515.

Comments

Dear Editors,

For the authorship of a research publication, it increasingly involves indication of group participation and responsibility, reflecting the co-operative nature, dedication of many people in different statuses and multidisciplinary teams, and complexity of research studies. Roles and responsibilities of each member of the team, no matter a student or an experienced researcher, range from initiating the study and designing the protocol, collecting and analyzing data, to writing up the results; and each step of the study process and results reporting is essential and crucial to timely submission of the manuscript to a journal for publication. I think two major requirements can be considered carefully for authorship of a manuscript:

First, as recommended by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Criteria for Authorship in October 2001, "each author should have participated sufficiently in the work to take responsibility for appropriate portions of the content. One or more authors should take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, from inception to published article. Authorship credit should be based only on: (1) substantial contributions to conception and design, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data; and (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content; and (3) final approval of the version to be published. Conditions 1, 2, and 3 must all be met."

Second, all authors are required to indicate their contributions to the work in both the study process and writing the manuscript, report their conflicts of interest, and take responsibility for the paper. Individuals who do not fulfill authorship criteria should not be identified as authors simply by virtue of performing some study related activities such as subject recruitment, acquisition of funding, editing the manuscript, or supervising the study investigator. Their names and contributions can be acknowledged at the end of the article, with a decription of their work.

Recognizing the complex nature of manuscript authorship, I hope some criteria or guidelines from journals available to authors can allow for appropriate identification of individual contributions and accountability to the work.

References
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (October, 2001). Uniform requirements for manuscripts submitted to biomedical journals. Retrieved December 20 2002, from http://www.icmje.org.

Wai-Tong Chien
The Nethersole School of Nursing, The Chinese University of Hong Kong
wtchien@cuhk.edu.hk