Title, authors, year published in medicine and its contribution
Answers
Answer:
Publications are primarily a means of communicating scientific information to colleagues, but they are much more than that. Publications in peer reviewed journals are proof of academic competence, and are used as a crucial component in evaluation criteria for academic promotion and fund raising. These also increase the prestige of academic institution [1]. Earlier, the single-author article was the rule. People used to associate one paper, or idea, with one name; for examples: the production of the first vaccines and Edward Jenner, the discovery of penicillin and Alexander Fleming, and the application of radiotherapy and Marie Curie. But over the past decades, the average number of authors on scientific manuscripts has drastically increased [1].
The role and definition of authorship in scientific and medical journals has become increasingly complicated in recent years. In most other forms of publishing, such as social sciences, humanities, legal, perhaps three or four authors collaborated in the writing of the work [2]. But, the nature of scientific research and reporting means that “authorship” no longer justify into this category [2]. This means, a researcher who didn’t write the text of a paper, but contributed substantially to the conception of the work, or the analysis of the data, can still be considered an author. Moreover, electronic communication has made sharing information and collaborating on projects far simpler, and many authors can now work closely with colleagues in different parts of the world. With such a rise in collaboration and co-authorship in academic writing, it becomes difficult to differentiate between a “contributor” and an “author” [2].
The debate over authorship and contributorship was again resurfaced in recent past [3], when a paper was published on the genomics of the fruit fly with over 1000 listed authors [4]. Researchers often face dilemmas about authorship, particularly, when the researchers are graduate students, fellows, or junior faculty. The dilemmas might involve discussions about fair criteria for more senior faculty to be acknowledged as key contributors or authors on manuscripts [5]. Though some authors wish to acknowledge the important contribution of their colleagues, but ghost authors are undesirable. Readers do not want a meaningless list of names, they want to know who is chiefly responsible. Such growing trend is a challenge for the editors of journals in the field of bioethics to enhance awareness about the value and definition of authorship [1].