PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9239985

Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations.

Abstract

The increase in multidisciplinary research has led to a subsequent expansion of multiple authored articles in nursing as well as other disciplines. Although there are benefits to multiple authorship, there also are areas of possible conflict. The lack of adequate guidelines to address issues that may arise from multiple authorship heightens the possibility of disputes. Developing a blueprint for the preparation and presentation of papers emanating from a research team's work early in the project can avoid conflicts and ensure that the efforts of the appropriate individuals are reflected in the publications. This article discusses several issues related to authorship, including the assignment of authorship credit, the increased pressures to publish, and the complexity of authorship issues associated with multisite studies. The authors offer recommendations to reduce problems that may arise among members of a research team because of authorship issues. In addition, they include the guidelines that their multidisciplinary research team developed early in their project.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

J A Erlen, L A Siminoff, S M Sereika, L B Sutton. Multiple authorship: issues and recommendations.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s8755-7223(97)80097-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. FINDINGS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Authorship