Bhopal R, Rankin J, McColl E, Thomas L, Kaner E, Stacy R, Pearson P, Vernon B, Rodgers H
Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, School of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon Tyne.
BMJ. 1997 Apr 5;314(7086):1009-12.
To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship.
Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers.
University medical faculty.
66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments.
Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems.
50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%).
There seems to be a gap between editors' criteria for authorship and researchers' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.
评估研究人员在作者身份标准以及赠送作者身份的成因与控制方面的知识、观点和行为。
对研究人员分层样本进行访谈调查。
大学医学院。
66名工作人员（回复率94%），包括大学学术和研究岗位的多个级别。
对作者身份标准的知晓与应用、对哪些研究贡献应获得作者身份的看法、对赠送作者身份的认知及减少赠送作者身份的策略，以及作者身份问题的经历。
50名（76%）受访者支持作者身份标准，但很少有人了解或使用现有的标准。在能够明确指出医学期刊编辑国际委员会所有三项标准的五人中，只有一人知道所有标准都必须满足。41名受访者（62%）不同意这一规定。一系列实际和学术贡献被视为足以获得作者身份。赠送作者身份被认为很常见，是由发表压力、激励研究团队以及维持工作关系所推动的。一份为作者身份辩护的签署声明和每位作者贡献的发表声明被视为解决赠送作者身份问题的切实可行方法。大多数研究人员都经历过作者身份问题，最常见的是认为自己应得作者身份却未获得（49%）。
编辑的作者身份标准与研究人员的实践之间似乎存在差距。对标准缺乏认识只是部分原因。研究人员比编辑更看重实际研究贡献。未来的标准应由研究人员商定，而不应由编辑强加。
