(c)编辑然后写信给Drs, B和c解释他们看到的争端。他们说他们明白Drs A, B和C相信他们应该包括为这篇论文的合著者。也就是说,他们相信他们作出了实质性的知识贡献C博士的研究。作为作者,他们需要批准提交的手稿的杂志。强调他们的期刊编辑坚持国际医学期刊编辑委员会的指导方针对作者、标准中包含说明作者。bob官方app准则指出bob官方app作者名单应该包括那些已经取得了实质性的知识/工作概念上的贡献。这些贡献包括参与:实验设计、数据采集、分析和解释数据;(b)起草和/或批判性修改这篇文章对知识内容;和(c)最终批准出版的手稿版本。
一篇论文提交给国际医学期刊综述了外部和作者随后被邀请提交修改后的版本。最初提交包括作者从两个不同的研究机构和企业赞助一个作者。最初的提交是伴随着一个适当的描述个人作者的贡献,负面的利益冲突声明和一个适当的确认。修订后的手稿提交时,求职信表示,符合要求的修正和与国际医学期刊编辑委员会的作者的定义,作者已经修改的列表,但这个修正案可能重新谈判,如果编辑团队认为必要的。修正案涉及的所有作者的第二两个研究机构,使作者(丈夫和妻子)从第一个研究机构和资助者。第二个研究机构是现在只承认部分中提到。利益冲突声明也被改变了修订,说明剩下的作者曾提出专利申请中描述的技术的手稿。文章随后re-reviewed内部和外部,进一步修订手稿被邀请并相应地提交。最终版本的论文发表。在验证阶段,第二个研究机构的资深作者联系《华尔街日报》询问稿件的进展。 During the course of this discussion it became clear that neither he nor his colleagues were aware that they were no longer authors, nor that the paper had been accepted for publication. On their instigation an investigation was initiated by the appropriate authority at the first research institution, and subsequently by the federal government, because the second research institution had received government funding for the project. On discovering the authorship dispute, the journal cancelled the planned publication and informed the corresponding author that the authorship dispute would have to be resolved before publication could be considered. The remaining authors at the time of acceptance initially refused to cooperate with the investigation and formally withdrew the manuscript. They also requested that the journal should not communicate with the authors who had been removed and should not provide a copy of the revised manuscript to any external party. The journal cooperated with the investigations and released information on the paper despite this request.
提交一个在线期刊的一篇论文是与作者的顺序,B, C, D, E, F, g后,手稿被接受发表,作者做一些小改变。虽然修改格式,提交作者改变了作者的顺序到B, A, C, D, E, F, g .这种变化没有注意到编辑和手稿发表在网站上初步PDF文档,而最终的HTML表单被准备。提交作者的录取通知,发布的初步版本。在这个阶段,作者联系编辑说作者列表是不正确的。手稿不是其最终形式,还是技术上可能更改作者列表在这个阶段。编辑联系作者A, B,和G(提交作者)问他们同意他们之间正确的作者名单和联系编辑,通过提交作者,在一个星期内。编辑器还指出,一个可能的解决方案可能是表明作者a和B同样起到了推波助澜的作用。作者与编辑联系,说作者应该是一个列表,B, C, D, E, F, G和作者G联系编辑说作者列表应该是B, A, C, D, E, F, G .鉴于这种分歧,编辑决定不编辑器的位置调解,要求作者G(提交作者)确认所有作者都意识到决定作者列表作为B, A, C, D, E, F, G . E联系作者的编辑说,他很高兴来决定作者G(提交作者)。然而,作者G没有回答。后没有回复,再次编辑联系作者G,说除非他们听到的相反,这篇文章将发表作者名单B, A, C, D, E, F, G .进一步的一周之后,编辑从作者G仍然什么也没听见,因此决定发表这篇文章的作者顺序B, C, D, E, F, G,因为这是订单提交作者指定。 The paper had been in preliminary form for over four weeks. The journal’s practice is to send an acknowledgement at submission to all authors. Papers are published on the same day as acceptance or shortly thereafter. This is the citation that PubMed picks up for indexing. The finalised html version is then posted a few days later. The journal now also emails all authors at acceptance stage. Should the case have been handled differently?
一篇论文被接受,等待修改后的版本,使用官方信息报道健康的反应在一个特定的年龄段在20多年的时间。两个作者的学者和两个政府卫生部门的工作。当修订到达时,后者两位作者的名字都没有。其中一个解释说,他们不能达成协议与前两个作者修改,这似乎有点奇怪,他们可能同意原来的版本和随后的变化很小。说,第一作者发表的版本可能会导致一个重大的公共健康恐慌的措辞的结论很可能误导媒体将因果关系实际上是什么。异见人士被邀请写评论,详细叙述他们的反对意见。第一作者同意,但随后,高级官员打电话给编辑,指出卫生部门所关心的问题。官方的保证他/她无意的编辑器抑制研究,但要求编辑考虑可能对公共利益的影响。官方不希望下属写评论。学者的科学部门按钮躲编辑主管会议,解释说,他/她也关注误解的风险但无法干预,因为他/她有一个利益冲突,被政府监管机构的成员控制在这项研究中使用的数据库。 Consequently the head of department had asked the vice chancellor, who luckily had a relevant qualification in the area, to intervene instead. The editor was informed that the senior author might have contacted a politician, requesting a parliamentary question be raised, if the data were suppressed, although this has not been confirmed. The chairman of the regulatory body then contacted the editor, also expressing support for academic freedom, but urging great caution. The editor believed the real message was that the database concerned was an inadequate method of determining safety in the area it purported to cover, rather than the stated message, which was that certain adverse reactions had caused deaths. Concerned that the pressure exerted had tainted his judgement, the editor sought the advice of an independent reviewer, who largely agreed with him. The editor then discussed the whole issue with the authors and suggested ways to rewrite the paper, such that the data were protected, but also that the public interest was best served. Not surprisingly, the authors had been put under pressure, but agreed to consider the editor’s suggestions in a further revision. The editor wrote a commentary to accompany the article, which was directed at the media. Despite the anxieties of the authors’ superiors, the paper attracted little media attention. The editor felt largely untouchable, because he is not a health service employee, but other editors who are might find similar pressure difficult to deal with.