发表了一篇论文，作者的贡献如下:A和B有原创的想法和研究计划。A还负责收集样本和患者数据。C建立数据库并参与临床试验的策划。D开发了酶联免疫吸收法并分析了所有的样本。E和F负责数据的统计分析。论文由B、G、D、H和A共同撰写。A和B是本研究的保证人。D向丹麦科学欺诈委员会(Danish Committee on Scientific dis诚实)投诉，称投稿名单已经从作者们同意的内容上被修改了。委员会支持这一投诉，《日刊》同意发表一份对投稿人名单的更正，如下:a和D主动进行调查。A收集了临床资料。F更新并验证了c最初注册并安排的临床数据，F和D合作分析了PAI-1的样本。 F and E conducted in cooperation the statistical analysis. F, B, D and A interpreted the statistical results. A and B wrote the first draft of the paper and were in charge of the final manuscript. All authors actively participated in discussions regarding the conduction of the work and in preparation of the final manuscript. The findings of the Committee have subsequently been disputed.
去年，一份文件发表了四名名为作者。这些日记有关的日记收到了另一个人声称的一封信，声称他们也应该被记入作者。那个人（博士）一直是第二作者，摘要上有一个类似的标题，在会议上提出了类似的标题，其中发表论文的作者也被命名为作者。期刊写信给论文的第一个作者（L）。她回应如下：“摘要是我们的研究组提交的三项中的三项，描述了来自调查淋病流行病学的两项单独研究的早期发现。所有摘要都是由博士在会议前几个月写的。M博士没有参与公布的研究，而是作为研究小组的一部分，可能在稍后阶段贡献。随着Hindsight博士的好处，姓名的名字应该只包括在她参加的研究中的摘要上。“根据本文的第一个作者，M博士参与该研究一直是与患者进行访谈，并进入这些访谈的数据。我博士在她的信中拜访了：“M博士没有参加发表研究的概念或设计，在她的合同开始之前开始。 She did not contribute to data collection, data entry or editing, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, drafting or revision of the manuscript.” Dr L then goes on to describe the contribution of the other three named authors of the paper, all of whom seem to have contributed to conception, data collection and revising of the manuscript. The point of issue here seems to be that Dr M was part of the research group, although not directly involved in the study which was published in the journal, despite the fact that her name was included on the abstract when it was presented at the conference. According to Dr L, the project on which Dr M worked directly has not yet been written up. According to Dr M, as second author on the abstract, she was not told that her name would be omitted from the list of authors when the paper was submitted for publication.