Standardizing Authorship and Acknowledgement in MPOG
Standardizing authorship, collaborators,
and acknowledgement in MPOG
Sachin Kheterpal, MD MBA
The typical MPOG process
•
Single center (or maybe 2 or 3) decide to do a project
•
They spend weeks, months coming up with a proposal, dialoguing with UM/MPOG CC
faculty, programmers, and staff. Significant CC effort to provide feasibility feedback and
coordination across sites.
•
They evaluate their own single center data for prelim data section
•
A PCRC proposal is finalized and presented, which includes proposed author list
–
Non-U-M lead discussant offers feedback prior to presentation. Meaningful scientific contribution.
–
Many MPOG center faculty offer feedback during the PCRC. Meaningful scientific contribution.
•
If electronic revision or accept as is..move forward with minor/moderate changes; If
revise/represent, incorporate all that feedback and represent at another meeting
Who is an author?
•
The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria:
•
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition,
analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
•
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
•
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
•
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related
to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and
resolved.
What else is
there..according
to JAMA
and
Anesthesiology &
BJA & A&A &
Lancet
How do we recognize these contributions?
•
Proposing center authors – clear: ICMJE authors
•
MPOG Coordinating center faculty or staff that shepherd proposal: potentially an ICMJE
author depending upon level of involvement with PCRC PI
•
Site IT Champion: making the data exchange possible, doing monthly case validations:
potentially an ICMJE author, but often not involved in the research process
•
Site research PI: offering feedback at PCRC, reads proposal, gives insight into data:
potentially an ICMJE author, but can’t “.. be accountable for all aspects of the work in
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are
appropriately investigated and resolved.”
•
Other faculty at each site integrated into PCRC proposal as part of “research interest area”:
potentially an ICMJE author, but often aren’t “..drafting the work or revising it critically for
important intellectual content; Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the
work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work”
Current MPOG Recommendations
•
By-line authorship is largely established by time of PCRC presentation
•
Collaborator recognition groups
–
Site data validation and IT champions
–
PCRC attendees offering verbal comments, ideas or PCRC members offering written feedback
–
Other faculty at each site that provide meaningful written contribution
•
If revise/represent, may be able to modify by-line authorship list prior to next presentation
•
All collaborators must be attested to using Qualtrics survey; Sent to all
–
PCRC attendees for that proposal
–
Site PI (PCRC distribution)
–
Site IT Champions
–
Anyone else that the authors recommend, or is noted to make comments on PCRC proposal
google doc
•
Email should NOT be forwarded unless that individual played a relevant role in that project
•
Final decision: The project PI always
The process of authorship and acknowledgment in the MPOG involves significant collaboration and adherence to ICMJE recommendations. Various contributors play essential roles, with clear criteria for author recognition outlined by JAMA and leading medical journals. Recognizing these contributions is crucial for ensuring proper credit and accountability in research endeavors.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Standardizing authorship, collaborators, and acknowledgement in MPOG Sachin Kheterpal, MD MBA
The typical MPOG process Single center (or maybe 2 or 3) decide to do a project They spend weeks, months coming up with a proposal, dialoguing with UM/MPOG CC faculty, programmers, and staff. Significant CC effort to provide feasibility feedback and coordination across sites. They evaluate their own single center data for prelim data section A PCRC proposal is finalized and presented, which includes proposed author list Non-U-M lead discussant offers feedback prior to presentation. Meaningful scientific contribution. Many MPOG center faculty offer feedback during the PCRC. Meaningful scientific contribution. If electronic revision or accept as is..move forward with minor/moderate changes; If revise/represent, incorporate all that feedback and represent at another meeting
Who is an author? The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following 4 criteria: Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND Final approval of the version to be published; AND Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
What else is there..according to JAMA and Anesthesiology & BJA & A&A & Lancet
How do we recognize these contributions? Proposing center authors clear: ICMJE authors MPOG Coordinating center faculty or staff that shepherd proposal: potentially an ICMJE author depending upon level of involvement with PCRC PI Site IT Champion: making the data exchange possible, doing monthly case validations: potentially an ICMJE author, but often not involved in the research process Site research PI: offering feedback at PCRC, reads proposal, gives insight into data: potentially an ICMJE author, but can t .. be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved. Other faculty at each site integrated into PCRC proposal as part of research interest area : potentially an ICMJE author, but often aren t ..drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work
Current MPOG Recommendations By-line authorship is largely established by time of PCRC presentation Collaborator recognition groups Site data validation and IT champions PCRC attendees offering verbal comments, ideas or PCRC members offering written feedback Other faculty at each site that provide meaningful written contribution If revise/represent, may be able to modify by-line authorship list prior to next presentation All collaborators must be attested to using Qualtrics survey; Sent to all PCRC attendees for that proposal Site PI (PCRC distribution) Site IT Champions Anyone else that the authors recommend, or is noted to make comments on PCRC proposal google doc Email should NOT be forwarded unless that individual played a relevant role in that project Final decision: The project PI always
