Cargando…

A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship

BACKGROUND: Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor–mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 m...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Ing, Edsel B
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34552366
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S328648
_version_ 1784569696305020928
author Ing, Edsel B
author_facet Ing, Edsel B
author_sort Ing, Edsel B
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor–mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 medical journals. However, the binary ICMJEc have not yet been quantified. AIM: To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims. METHODS: The four ICMJEc were separated into the nine authorship components of conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation of data, draft, revision, final approval and accountability. In spring 2021, members of an international association of medical editors rated the importance of each authorship component using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no importance) to 10 (most important). The median component scores were used to calibrate the pairwise comparisons in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP priority weights were multiplied against a four-level perceived effort/capability grade to calculate an authorship score. RESULTS: Sixty-six decision-making medical editors completed the survey. The components had the median scores/AHP weights: conception 7.5/5.3%; design 8/8.9%; data acquisition 7/3.6%; data analysis 7/3.6%; interpretation of data 8/8.9%; draft 8/8.9%; revision 8/8.9%; final approval 9/20.1%; and accountability 10/31.8%, with Kruskal–Wallis Chi(2) = 65.11, p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The editors rated accountability as the most important component of authorship, followed by the final approval of the manuscript; data acquisition had the lowest median importance score for authorship. The scoring rubric (https://tinyurl.com/eyu86y96) transforms the binary tetrad ICMJEc into 9 quantifiable components of authorship, providing a transparent method to objectively assess authorship contributions, determine authorship order and potentially decrease the abuse of authorship. If desired, individual journals can survey their editorial boards and use the AHP method to derive customized weightings for an ICMJEc-based authorship index.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8450677
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84506772021-09-21 A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship Ing, Edsel B Adv Med Educ Pract Original Research BACKGROUND: Authorship is a pinnacle activity in academic medicine that often involves collaboration and a mentor–mentee relationship. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors criteria for authorship (ICMJEc) are intended to prevent abuses of authorship and are used by more than 5500 medical journals. However, the binary ICMJEc have not yet been quantified. AIM: To develop a numeric scoring rubric for the ICMJEc to corroborate the authenticity of authorship claims. METHODS: The four ICMJEc were separated into the nine authorship components of conception, design, data acquisition, data analysis, interpretation of data, draft, revision, final approval and accountability. In spring 2021, members of an international association of medical editors rated the importance of each authorship component using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (no importance) to 10 (most important). The median component scores were used to calibrate the pairwise comparisons in an analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The AHP priority weights were multiplied against a four-level perceived effort/capability grade to calculate an authorship score. RESULTS: Sixty-six decision-making medical editors completed the survey. The components had the median scores/AHP weights: conception 7.5/5.3%; design 8/8.9%; data acquisition 7/3.6%; data analysis 7/3.6%; interpretation of data 8/8.9%; draft 8/8.9%; revision 8/8.9%; final approval 9/20.1%; and accountability 10/31.8%, with Kruskal–Wallis Chi(2) = 65.11, p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: The editors rated accountability as the most important component of authorship, followed by the final approval of the manuscript; data acquisition had the lowest median importance score for authorship. The scoring rubric (https://tinyurl.com/eyu86y96) transforms the binary tetrad ICMJEc into 9 quantifiable components of authorship, providing a transparent method to objectively assess authorship contributions, determine authorship order and potentially decrease the abuse of authorship. If desired, individual journals can survey their editorial boards and use the AHP method to derive customized weightings for an ICMJEc-based authorship index. Dove 2021-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC8450677/ /pubmed/34552366 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S328648 Text en © 2021 Ing. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Original Research
Ing, Edsel B
A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship
title A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship
title_full A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship
title_fullStr A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship
title_full_unstemmed A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship
title_short A Survey-Weighted Analytic Hierarchy Process to Quantify Authorship
title_sort survey-weighted analytic hierarchy process to quantify authorship
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8450677/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34552366
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S328648
work_keys_str_mv AT ingedselb asurveyweightedanalytichierarchyprocesstoquantifyauthorship
AT ingedselb surveyweightedanalytichierarchyprocesstoquantifyauthorship