Davies H D, Langley J M, Speert D P
Department of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary.
CMAJ. 1996 Oct 1;155(7):877-82.
To determine how department chairs in pediatrics rate involvement in medical research and to determine whether faculty deans' offices have written criteria for evaluating research activity when assessing candidates for promotion or tenure.
Cross-sectional mailed survey and telephone survey.
Canadian faculties of medicine.
Chairs of the 16 Canadian university departments of pediatrics and deans' offices of the 16 university medical faculties.
Weight assigned by department chairs to contributions to published research according to author's research role and position in list of authors and the method of listing authors.
Fifteen of 16 chairs responded. Twelve submitted a completed survey, two described their institutions' policies and one responded that the institution had no policy. Eleven reported that faculty members were permitted or requested to indicate research roles on curricula vitae. There was a consensus that all or principal investigators should be listed as authors and that citing the research group as collective author was insufficient. The contribution of first authors was rated highest for articles in which all or principal investigators were listed. The contribution of joint-principal investigators listed as first author was also given a high rating. In the case of collective authorship, the greatest contribution was credited to the principal investigator of the group. Participation of primary investigators in multicentre research was rated as having higher value than participation in single-centre research by seven respondents and as having equal value by four. Only one dean's office had explicit written criteria for evaluating authorship.
Most departments of pediatrics and medical faculty dean's offices in Canadian universities have no criteria for assessing the type of contribution made to published research. In view of the trend to use multicentre settings for clinical trials, guidelines for weighting investigators' contributions are needed.
确定儿科学系主任如何评估参与医学研究的情况，并确定在评估晋升或终身教职候选人时，学院院长办公室是否有评估研究活动的书面标准。
横断面邮寄调查和电话调查。
加拿大医学院。
加拿大16所大学儿科学系的系主任以及16所大学医学院的院长办公室。
系主任根据作者的研究角色、在作者名单中的位置以及作者署名方式，对已发表研究的贡献所赋予的权重。
16位系主任中有15位做出回应。12位提交了完整的调查问卷，2位描述了所在机构的政策，1位回复称所在机构没有相关政策。11位报告称允许或要求教职员工在简历中注明研究角色。大家一致认为所有作者或主要研究者都应列为作者，仅将研究团队列为集体作者是不够的。在所有作者或主要研究者都被列为作者的文章中，第一作者的贡献被评为最高。列为第一作者的联合主要研究者的贡献也得到了很高的评价。在集体署名的情况下，最大的贡献归功于该团队的主要研究者。7位受访者认为主要研究者参与多中心研究的价值高于参与单中心研究，4位认为二者价值相当。只有一个院长办公室有明确的书面标准来评估作者身份。
加拿大大学的大多数儿科学系和医学院院长办公室没有评估对已发表研究贡献类型的标准。鉴于临床试验采用多中心研究的趋势，需要制定评估研究者贡献权重的指南。
