Rohwer Anke, Young Taryn, Wager Elizabeth, Garner Paul
Centre for Evidence-based Health Care, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Cochrane South Africa, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa.
BMJ Open. 2017 Nov 22;7(11):e018467. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-018467.
To document low/middle-income country (LMIC) health researchers' views about authorship, redundant publication, plagiarism and conflicts of interest and how common poor practice was in their institutions.
We developed a questionnaire based on scenarios about authorship, redundant publication, plagiarism and conflicts of interest. We asked participants whether the described practices were acceptable and whether these behaviours were common at their institutions. We conducted in-depth interviews with respondents who agreed to be interviewed.
We invited 607 corresponding authors of Cochrane reviews working in LMICs. From the 583 emails delivered, we obtained 199 responses (34%). We carried out in-depth interviews with 15 respondents.
Seventy-seven per cent reported that guest authorship occurred at their institution, 60% reported text recycling. For plagiarism, 12% of respondents reported that this occurred 'occasionally', and 24% 'rarely'. Forty per cent indicated that their colleagues had not declared conflicts of interest in the past. Respondents generally recognised poor practice in scenarios but reported that they occurred at their institutions. Themes identified from in-depth interviews were (1) authorship rules are simple in theory, but not consistently applied; (2) academic status and power underpin behaviours; (3) institutions and culture fuel bad practices and (4) researchers are uncertain about what conflict of interests means and how this may influence research.
LMIC researchers report that guest authorship is widely accepted and common. While respondents report that plagiarism and undeclared conflicts of interest are unacceptable in practice, they appear common. Determinants of poor practice relate to academic status and power, fuelled by institutional norms and culture.
记录低收入和中等收入国家（LMIC）卫生研究人员对作者身份、重复发表、抄袭和利益冲突的看法，以及这些不良行为在其所在机构的普遍程度。
我们基于关于作者身份、重复发表、抄袭和利益冲突的情景编写了一份问卷。我们询问参与者所描述的行为是否可接受，以及这些行为在他们所在机构是否常见。我们对同意接受访谈的受访者进行了深入访谈。
我们邀请了607位在低收入和中等收入国家工作的Cochrane系统评价的通讯作者。在发送的583封电子邮件中，我们获得了199份回复（34%）。我们对15名受访者进行了深入访谈。
77%的人报告称其所在机构存在挂名作者现象，60%的人报告存在文本重复使用情况。对于抄袭，12%的受访者报告“偶尔”发生，24%的人报告“很少”发生。40%的人表示他们的同事过去没有申报利益冲突。受访者普遍认识到情景中的不良行为，但报告称这些行为在他们所在机构发生。从深入访谈中确定的主题有：（1）作者身份规则理论上简单，但应用不一致；（2）学术地位和权力支撑着这些行为；（3）机构和文化助长了不良行为；（4）研究人员不确定利益冲突的含义以及这可能如何影响研究。
低收入和中等收入国家的研究人员报告称挂名作者现象被广泛接受且很常见。虽然受访者报告称抄袭和未申报的利益冲突在实践中不可接受，但它们似乎很常见。不良行为的决定因素与学术地位和权力有关，机构规范和文化助长了这些因素。
