To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship.
Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers.
University medical faculty.
66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments.
Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems.
50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria.
Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation.
A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship.
Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships.
A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship.
Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%). (...)
Mots-clés Pascal : Recherche scientifique, Document publié, Documentation médicale, Auteur, Déontologie, Réglementation, Royaume Uni, Europe
Mots-clés Pascal anglais : Scientific research, Published document, Medical documentation, Author, Deontology, Regulation, United Kingdom, Europe
Notice produite par :
Inist-CNRS - Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique
Cote : 97-0241880
Code Inist : 002B30A05. Création : 11/06/1997.