Annette Flanagin

Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey

Objectives To assess the prevalence of honorary and ghost authors in six leading general medical journals in 2008 and compare this with the prevalence reported by authors of articles published in 1996. Design Cross sectional survey using a web based questionnaire. Setting International survey of journal authors. Participants Sample of corresponding authors of 896 research articles, review articles, and editorial/opinion articles published in six general medical journals with high impact factors in 2008: Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, Nature Medicine, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Main outcome measures Self reported compliance with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for all authors on the selected articles. Results A total of 630/896 (70.3%) corresponding authors responded to the survey. The prevalence of articles with honorary authorship or ghost authorship, or both, was 21.0% (95% CI 18.0% to 24.3%), a decrease from 29.2% reported in 1996 (P=0.004). Based on 545 responses on honorary authorship, 96 articles (17.6% (95% CI 14.6% to 21.0%)) had honorary authors (range by journal 12.2% to 29.3%), a non-significant change from 1996 (19.3%; P=0.439). Based on 622 responses on ghost authorship, 49 articles (7.9% (6.0% to 10.3%)) had ghost authors (range by journal 2.1% to 11.0%), a significant decline from 1996 (11.5%; P=0.023). The prevalence of honorary authorship was 25.0% in original research reports, 15.0% in reviews, and 11.2% in editorials, whereas the prevalence of ghost authorship was 11.9% in research articles, 6.0% in reviews, and 5.3% in editorials. Conclusions Evidence of honorary and ghost authorship in 21% of articles published in major medical journals in 2008 suggests that increased efforts by scientific journals, individual authors, and academic institutions are essential to promote responsibility, accountability, and transparency in authorship, and to maintain integrity in scientific publication.

Implementation of the ICMJE Form for Reporting Potential Conflicts of Interest

WITH THE GOALS OF STANDARDIZING THE REporting of potential conflicts of interest, reducing the variability of reporting processes and formats among multiple journals, and simplifying reporting of competing interests for authors, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) developed a uniform electronic disclosure form. This document, the “ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest,” has been placed in the public domain, pilot tested, and modified and has been implemented by some journals. Beginning November 1, 2010, JAMA will request all authors who submit manuscripts (eg, original research, reviews, case-based articles, commentaries, editorials, letters to the editor, and book reviews) to complete and submit the ICMJE disclosure form (available at http://pubs .ama-assn.org/misc/icmje_author_form.pdf). All coauthors also should provide a copy of the completed form to the corresponding author of the submitted manuscript. Each author also will continue to be required to complete the JAMA authorship form, which includes author contributions, confirmation of reporting disclosures and funding, and copyright transfer (available at http://jama.ama-assn.org/misc /auinst_crit.pdf). In all articles published in JAMA after January 1, 2011, JAMA will include a statement indicating that all authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE disclosure form. JAMA will continue to require that all authors’ potential conflicts of interest, including relevant financial interests and relationships and affiliations (other than those affiliations listed in the title page of the manuscript), are reported in the “Acknowledgment” section at the end of the manuscript for consideration. All authors’ potential conflicts of interest should be reported in the manuscript in a manner consistent with that reported in their completed ICMJE disclosure form and should include the following: •Any potential conflicts of interest “involving the work under consideration for publication” (during the time involving the work, from initial conception and planning to the present); •Any “relevant financial activities outside the submitted work” (during the 36 months prior to submission); and •Any “other relationships or activities that readers could perceive to have influenced, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what you wrote in the submitted work” (based on all relationships that were present during the 36 months prior to submission). The corresponding author will be responsible for ensuring that the disclosure information reported in the manuscript is consistent with the information reported by each author on the ICMJE disclosure forms. Authors who have no potential conflicts of interest should indicate such in the ICMJE disclosure form and include a statement of no such interests in the “Acknowledgment” section of the manuscript. Failure to include the information about potential conflicts of interest in the manuscript may delay evaluation and review of the manuscript. At the time of manuscript acceptance, JAMA will request that authors confirm the accuracy of the disclosure information reported in the manuscript and update their reported conflicts of interest as necessary. JAMA will continue to publish authors’ disclosures so that readers can review such disclosures as part of the articles. We will continue to evaluate this approach as we gain experience with implementation of the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest, and along with other ICMJE journals, will reassess the effectiveness of this approach in the coming months.

Core Competencies for Scientific Editors of Biomedical Journals: Consensus Statement

BackgroundScientific editors are responsible for deciding which articles to publish in their journals. However, we have not found documentation of their required knowledge, skills, and characteristics, or the existence of any formal core competencies for this role.MethodsWe describe the development of a minimum set of core competencies for scientific editors of biomedical journals.ResultsThe 14 key core competencies are divided into three major areas, and each competency has a list of associated elements or descriptions of more specific knowledge, skills, and characteristics that contribute to its fulfillment.ConclusionsWe believe that these core competencies are a baseline of the knowledge, skills, and characteristics needed to perform competently the duties of a scientific editor at a biomedical journal.

The Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: A Call for Research

Everyone has a stake in the quality of the biomedical literature. With that in mind, we announce our intention to hold the Eighth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, September 10-12, 2017, in Chicago, Illinois. As with the previous Congresses, our aim will be to improve the quality and credibility of biomedical information and to help advance the efficiency, effectiveness, and equitability of scientific information dissemination throughout the world. We announced in 1986 that we would sponsor and hold a conference to present the results of research into the process of editorial selection and improvement of scientific manuscripts, constituting peer review.1 Each of these Congresses, held every 4 years since 1989 and organized by JAMA and the BMJ, have been devoted to 3 days of presentations of original research into editorial processes. A successful feature of the Congresses is our insistence on giving members of the audience ample time to debate the research presented. We soon realized that the actual process whereby editors sent manuscripts to reviewers before they reached their decision was only one issue affecting the quality of published papers. The research presented at the Congresses, which had startedasstudiesof themechanicsofpeer review,graduallybegantoconcentrateontheproductof theprocess.Beginningwith the firstCongress,biasesofeverysortweredocumented,2-8 and proposals to prevent the biases were made and tested.9-11 The Congresseshave featuredresearchdescribingpoorpracticeson theparts of authors, reviewers, editors, and journals, aswell as improvements inthesepracticesandthequalityofreportingand publication.12Andagain,prescriptions for improvementswere given and tested. Surprises keepoccurring.While the processwhereby editors actuallymake their decisions remains almost asmysterious as at the start, the huge advances in the electronic world havemade peer review less expensive, quicker, andmore efficient and have brought forth important but competing advancesandthreats to thevalidityofscientificpublication.Thus, we are interested in continuing the evaluation of the quality of reporting and publication and in further developments in quests for openness—open peer review, postpublication public review and comment, open and public access, data transparency, and transparency of contributions, conflicts, and biases—as well as in better ways to serve readers and users of biomedical publication. Electronic advances also have enabled phony, predatory, and hijacked journals, phony authors, fake reviewers, and articles published in journals trumpeting their rigorous but phony peer review, nonexistent editors,unawareeditorialboardmembers, andmisleadingperformancemetrics.13-16 All of these, andnodoubt newer tricks, will require investigation and remedies tested, on which we hope to see new research presented anddiscussed at the next Peer Review Congress. Finally, we remain interested in research into the peer review of grants, peer review as practiced in other sciences, and in the testing of types of peer review, new and old. The Peer Review Congresses have enjoyed collaboration with important groups, such as the EQUATOR (Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research) Network.17 For 2017, such collaboration will continue and will include coordination with the research and education programs of METRICS (Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford).18 METRICS will be holding its first international meeting at Stanford on November 19-21, 2015, focused on improving research practices, and the second meeting will be coordinated with the Peer Review Congress in 2017. We also plan a formal lively debate on a hot topic that will inform, entertain, and engage the Congress participants. We welcome suggestions for hot topics. We encourage you to start your research now. Abstracts summarizing original, high-quality research on any aspect of scientific peer review, publication, and information exchange are welcome. Suggested topics of interest include those listed in the Box. As with previous Congresses, preference will be given to well-developed studies with generalizable results (eg, multijournal/multidisciplinary, prospective, multiyear trials and controlled studies). Retrospective studies, systematic reviews, bibliometric and other data analyses, surveys, and other types of studies will also be considered. Abstracts that report new research and findings will be given priority. The deadline for submission of abstracts describing new research is January 2017. Programs and abstracts of research presentedat theprevious7CongressesareavailableonthePeer Review Congress website.14 Additional information and future announcements will be available on the website as well. Opinion

Eighth international congress on peer review in biomedical publication.

A call for research

Research on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Furthering the Quest to Improve the Quality of Reporting

This issue of JAMA includes 3 reports1- 3 first presented at the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication in September 2013.4 At the first congress, held in 1989, the most common topic of the presented abstracts was editorial peer review.5 Since then, the research presented and discussed has substantially broadened to include all aspects of biomedical publication—from research proposals to sharing data after publication.4

Update on JAMA's Policy on Release of Information to the Public.

THE PUBLIC IS INTENSELY INTERESTED IN MEDICAL REsearch discoveries and health information, and responsible dissemination of new scientific research findings by biomedical journals and the news media is of critical importance. Peer-reviewed, primarysource medical journals consider original manuscripts for publication with an understanding that these papers have not been published previously and that the findings from these reports have not been disseminated widely. Thus, conflict sometimes exists among authors, who may wish to release the findings from their studies as soon as possible; reporters and other representatives of news organizations, who are interested in reporting new information on health as quickly as possible; and medical journal editors, who are responsible for ensuring the quality and validity of reports of medical information through rigorous peer review and stringent editorial evaluation. However, all involved want medical information to be as accurate as possible because clinicians and the public rely on medical journal articles to provide accurate, reliable, and credible information that can be used to improve patient care and public health. Because of technological advances that provide multiple means of information dissemination through various media, as well as continued confusion about prepublication release of scientific information, this editorial provides an update and revision of JAMA’s previously published editorials and policies on release of information to the public. Manuscripts submitted for evaluation for publication in JAMA are considered confidential and privileged communications among authors, editors, and peer reviewers. JAMA editorial staff will not release information about the submitted paper to anyone outside the editorial review process without permission of the author. An exception may occur when concerns arise about scientific misconduct or ethical violations that require involvement of oversight authorities, such as institutional officers or research or funding agency representatives as part of the investigative process. Authors should refrain from informing other third parties (such as colleagues, professional organizations, and the news media) that their manuscript is under consideration or has been accepted by JAMA. Moreover, peer reviewers are responsible for maintaining this confidentiality and are required not to divulge any information obtained in the review process or share the manuscript under review with any third party without permission. JAMA will consider a manuscript for publication only if it (or substantial portions of it) has not been published previously and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. At the time of manuscript submission, authors are required to indicate whether any material in the manuscript (eg, text, data, tables, figures, or other material) has been published elsewhere, or is under consideration elsewhere. Also, at the time of manuscript submission authors are expected to provide the editors with copies of related or possible duplicative materials (ie, those containing substantially similar content or using the same or similar data) that have been previously published or are under consideration elsewhere. Moreover, once a manuscript is submitted and is under consideration by JAMA, authors as well as their institutions and research sponsors must not participate in news conferences or issue news releases disclosing information in the manuscript or revealing that it has been submitted to JAMA. Evaluation of manuscripts reporting findings that have received detailed and widely disseminated news coverage by virtue of news releases issued or news conferences held prior to the manuscript being submitted to JAMA will include assessment of the importance and novel nature of the information in view of the news media coverage. Based on these policies, JAMA editors consider scientific and clinical reports (ie, submitted manuscripts) individually, to evaluate the validity and quality of these reports; assess the importance and novelty of the information; decide whether to accept them for publication and when to publish them; and determine the timing of communication of these reports to physicians, other health care professionals, and the public. In the vast majority of cases, this dissemination of information should occur in an orderly fashion and should coincide with publication of the article in JAMA. There are a few general exceptions to JAMA’s policy that prohibits prepublication release of information: reporting research findings during scientific or clinical meetings, such as at scientific sessions at national or international specialty or subspecialty meetings; communicating informa-

Editorial Evaluation, Peer Review, and Publication of Research Reports With and Without Supplementary Online Content

of Research Reports With and Without Supplementary Online Content Journal article supplementary online content is an option for publication of data and materials that may not fit in the space allotted to a scientific article. The use of online supplements is increasing,1 and standards have been published to guide their format, length, and appropriateness.2,3 However, the value of supplements has been questioned.4-6 We assessed whether research manuscripts with supplements have a higher likelihood of peer review, acceptance, and online use after publication than research manuscripts without supplements.

Announcing JAMA Network Open-A New Journal From The JAMA Network.

We are pleased to announce that in early 2018, The JAMA Network will launch a new journal—JAMA Network Open. Our editorial goal is to publish the very best clinical research across all disciplines, serving the worldwide community of investigators and clinicians and meeting the evolving needs and requirements of authors and funders. With the launch of JAMA Network Open, we simultaneously assert our editorial commitment to excellence and to the authorship community regardless of requirements of funders. This will be a fully open access journal and follows the launch of JAMA Oncology in 2015 and JAMA Cardiology in 2016, which are hybrid journals offering open access options for research articles.1,2 Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH, current editor in chief of JAMA Pediatrics, will be the editor in chief of JAMA Network Open. Medical journals and publishing have changed substantially during the past 2 decades following the emergence and ascendance of the internet and the mobilization of journal content. Journals have gone “digital”—virtually all journals release content online ahead of or instead of print, and connect with their readers via electronic table of contents and through social media. Open access publishing has risen to prominence concurrent with these changes, with a primary goal to make research findings more accessible to potential users around the world. In addition, many funders now require that authors publish their results in open access journals, and this requirement will almost assuredly expand in the future. Our decision to launch an open access journal was based on careful thought and planning and represents our response to the rapidly evolving landscape of scientific discovery and medical journals and publishing. Between 2008 and 2016, the number of major articles indexed annually in Web of Science increased from 984 350 to 1 364 453 (Figure, A). During the same time, at JAMA and The JAMA Network specialty journals the number of research manuscripts submitted increased from 9006 to 14 676, but the number of research manuscripts published declined from 1739 to 1335 (Figure, B). In 2017, following the launches of JAMA Oncology and JAMA Cardiology, we estimate that more than 17 000 research manuscripts will be submitted to JAMA and the 11 specialty journals and approximately 1500 will be published. Clearly, the world’s research effort has increased substantially during the past decade. The number of articles published in JAMA and the 11 specialty journals is necessarily limited, and JAMA Network Open will provide another high-quality option for authors of research articles in disciplines already represented by our current titles as well as expanding opportunities for authors of manuscripts in other important disciplines. Following the launch of JAMA Oncology and JAMA Cardiology, advocates for additional new journals in The JAMA Network approached us with thoughtful proposals. Many disciplines are not represented in our current collection of titles, and thus there are opportunities to publish more disciplinespecific journals. Rather than launch another subject-focused title, our preference is to expand The JAMA Network publishing platform to encompass all of clinical medicine and health care. The new JAMA Network website has made this decision Figure. Numbers of Major Articles Published in Web of Science and Research Articles Submitted and Accepted for JAMA Network Journals, 2008-2016

Three Decades of Peer Review Congresses

18. Boonstra H, Duran V, Northington Gamble V, Blumenthal P, Dominguez L, Pies C. The “boom and bust phenomenon”: the hopes, dreams, and broken promises of the contraceptive revolution. Contraception. 2000;61(1):9-25. 19. Carney PI, Lin J, Xia F, Law A. Temporal trend in the use of hysteroscopic vs laparoscopic sterilization and the characteristics of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured females in the US who have had the procedures. Int J Womens Health. 2016;8:137-144.