Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Division of Pediatric Emergency Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Trop Med Int Health. 2019 Oct;24(10):1229-1242. doi: 10.1111/tmi.13295. Epub 2019 Aug 21.
To understand the importance of authorship and authorship position, and gauge perceptions of inappropriate authorship assignment, among authors publishing paediatric research conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study using an online survey of both corresponding and randomly selected, non-corresponding authors who published research conducted in LMICs from 2006 to 2015 in the top four paediatric journals by Eigenfactor score. We used chi-square tests to compare responses by authors living in LMICs to authors living in high-income countries (HICs). We analysed qualitative responses using thematic analysis.
Of 1420 potential respondents, 19.6% (n = 279) completed the survey. 57% (n = 159) lived in LMICs and 43% (n = 120) in HICs. LMIC authors more commonly perceived first authorship as most important for their academic advancement than HIC authors (74.2% vs. 60.8%, P = 0.017), while HIC authors reported last authorship as most important (25.1% vs. 38.3%, P = 0.018). 65% (n = 181) of respondents believed that their collaborators had been inappropriately assigned authorship positions (no difference in LMIC and HIC responses) and 32.6% (n = 91) reported personally accepting inappropriate authorship positions (more common in HIC respondents, P = 0.005). In qualitative data, respondents questioned the applicability of standard authorship guidelines for collaborative research conducted in LMICs.
LMIC and HIC authors held different perceptions about the importance of authorship position. Reported inappropriate authorship assignment was common among both LMIC and HIC respondents. Alternatives to standard authorship criteria for research conducted in LMICs merit further studies.
了解作者身份和作者职位的重要性，并评估在低中等收入国家（LMICs）进行儿科研究的作者对不当作者分配的看法。
我们使用在线调查的方式对来自 2006 年至 2015 年在儿科四大期刊上发表的来自 LMICs 的研究的通讯作者和随机选择的非通讯作者进行了横断面混合方法研究。我们使用卡方检验比较了居住在 LMICs 的作者和居住在高收入国家（HICs）的作者的回答。我们使用主题分析对定性回答进行了分析。
在 1420 名潜在受访者中，有 19.6%（n=279）完成了调查。57%（n=159）居住在 LMICs，43%（n=120）居住在 HICs。LMIC 作者比 HIC 作者更普遍地认为第一作者身份对他们的学术发展最重要（74.2%比 60.8%，P=0.017），而 HIC 作者则认为最后作者身份最重要（25.1%比 38.3%，P=0.018）。65%（n=181）的受访者认为他们的合作者的作者职位分配不当（LMIC 和 HIC 受访者的回答没有差异），32.6%（n=91）的受访者报告说他们自己接受了不当的作者职位（在 HIC 受访者中更为常见，P=0.005）。在定性数据中，受访者质疑适用于在 LMICs 进行的合作研究的标准作者身份准则的适用性。
LMIC 和 HIC 作者对作者职位的重要性持有不同的看法。LMIC 和 HIC 受访者都报告了不当的作者分配情况。在 LMICs 进行的研究中，替代标准作者标准的方法值得进一步研究。
