Guest guest Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Hi, After experiencing yesterday's tremor shocks in Himalayas which measured >5.6, I am back. For people living here that was not extra ordinary. On authorship: - The Chief investigator / principal investigator should be first author. - The first authorship should not be compromised to please the guide or head of department. - All those who contribute significantly on the scientific merit should get co-authorship. - It is always good to decide the authorship order at the protocol writing stage to save heart burn later. - Do not gift authorship to friends, colleugues or for getting authorship reciprocally. - Do not give coauthorship to head of department, if there is no contribution from the boss. Dr Vijay Thawani > > hello, > I am aware that the antennas are up the moment this segment is mentioned. > lets begin with the beginning. > The academic excellence of an individual is decided primarily on the basis of > number of articles, books published by him. If it is an individual effort , all > is well and good. But In many instances when the research is a collaborative > effort, the issue of authorship arises. > Any research project involves several steps like the basic idea or design, > actually performing the experiment, collecting the data, reasoning out( > analyzing) and finally coming to the conclusion. Any contribution in the above > steps is considered as fit for authorship. Composing the text and describing the > results or even writing the entire article does not in any way contribute to the > scientific content of the research and as such does not merit authorship. > > It is not only controversial as to who should be listed as author but the order > of listing is also a bone of contention. > We will look at an interesting download on this issue later. > kunda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Dear Vijay,I can sense what it must have been. Sorry to hear this, and hope things are managable over at your end.We have survived two bouts of earthquake (7.4 and 6.4 six months later) and we know how it feels. My prayers and best wishes are with you all. On another note, suffering these aftershocks and earthquake bouts convince me that it is not just Richter scale intensity but more importantly depth, and distance, as well as geographical location that have to do with human impact of the scale of this natural disaster. On writing the manuscript, I shall write more later.Arin " There's a crack in everything, it's how the light gets in. " (Leonard Cohen) On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Vijay <drvijaythawani@...> wrote: Hi, After experiencing yesterday's tremor shocks in Himalayas which measured >5.6, I am back. For people living here that was not extra ordinary. On authorship: - The Chief investigator / principal investigator should be first author. - The first authorship should not be compromised to please the guide or head of department. - All those who contribute significantly on the scientific merit should get co-authorship. - It is always good to decide the authorship order at the protocol writing stage to save heart burn later. - Do not gift authorship to friends, colleugues or for getting authorship reciprocally. - Do not give coauthorship to head of department, if there is no contribution from the boss. Dr Vijay Thawani > > hello, > I am aware that the antennas are up the moment this segment is mentioned. > lets begin with the beginning. > The academic excellence of an individual is decided primarily on the basis of > number of articles, books published by him. If it is an individual effort , all > is well and good. But In many instances when the research is a collaborative > effort, the issue of authorship arises. > Any research project involves several steps like the basic idea or design, > actually performing the experiment, collecting the data, reasoning out( > analyzing) and finally coming to the conclusion. Any contribution in the above > steps is considered as fit for authorship. Composing the text and describing the > results or even writing the entire article does not in any way contribute to the > scientific content of the research and as such does not merit authorship. > > It is not only controversial as to who should be listed as author but the order > of listing is also a bone of contention. > We will look at an interesting download on this issue later. > kunda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Thanks Dr Vijay and Dr Arin for blending aftershocks with the discussion on authorship which is perhaps what this topic is expected to produce ( as also hinted at by Madam Kunda). :-)I heard that the axis of Earth had shifted 4 degrees after the recent Japan quake but i am not sure if it is true. To shift back to the topic i wonder if the structured format provided by Dr Vijay can also be applied to projects that are more exploratory and less pre-decided and perhaps often happen on a small scale without much external funding? These are the projects that i often have to deal with in our journal ( open access issue here: http://resources.igi-global.com/marketing/journals/IJUDH1(1).pdf ) It would be great to follow the other inputs on this and also await Arin's views on authorship.regards,rakeshOn Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Arin Basu <arin.basu@...> wrote: Dear Vijay,I can sense what it must have been. Sorry to hear this, and hope things are managable over at your end.We have survived two bouts of earthquake (7.4 and 6.4 six months later) and we know how it feels. My prayers and best wishes are with you all. On another note, suffering these aftershocks and earthquake bouts convince me that it is not just Richter scale intensity but more importantly depth, and distance, as well as geographical location that have to do with human impact of the scale of this natural disaster. On writing the manuscript, I shall write more later.Arin " There's a crack in everything, it's how the light gets in. " (Leonard Cohen) On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 2:32 PM, Vijay <drvijaythawani@...> wrote: Hi, After experiencing yesterday's tremor shocks in Himalayas which measured >5.6, I am back. For people living here that was not extra ordinary. On authorship: - The Chief investigator / principal investigator should be first author. - The first authorship should not be compromised to please the guide or head of department. - All those who contribute significantly on the scientific merit should get co-authorship. - It is always good to decide the authorship order at the protocol writing stage to save heart burn later. - Do not gift authorship to friends, colleugues or for getting authorship reciprocally. - Do not give coauthorship to head of department, if there is no contribution from the boss. Dr Vijay Thawani > > hello, > I am aware that the antennas are up the moment this segment is mentioned. > lets begin with the beginning. > The academic excellence of an individual is decided primarily on the basis of > number of articles, books published by him. If it is an individual effort , all > is well and good. But In many instances when the research is a collaborative > effort, the issue of authorship arises. > Any research project involves several steps like the basic idea or design, > actually performing the experiment, collecting the data, reasoning out( > analyzing) and finally coming to the conclusion. Any contribution in the above > steps is considered as fit for authorship. Composing the text and describing the > results or even writing the entire article does not in any way contribute to the > scientific content of the research and as such does not merit authorship. > > It is not only controversial as to who should be listed as author but the order > of listing is also a bone of contention. > We will look at an interesting download on this issue later. > kunda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Dear all, April 7th World Health Day Theme is 'Antimicrobial resistance: no action today, no cure tomorrow'. Am attaching a handout prepared to give all Medical Shops in Cochin through the Cochin IMA. Indian Academy of Pediatrics and its publication IAP Drug Formulary is doing its bit to spread the message. Please do the needful at your end ThanksDr Jeeson C UnniDr Jeeson C Unni MD, DCH, FIAPEditor-in-chief, IAP Drug FormularyDr Kunhalu's Nursing Home, T D Road, Cochin 692011. Ph 0484 2315718 ®, 4027819 On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:15 AM, kunda gharpure <gharpurekunda@...> wrote: hello, I am aware that the antennas are up the moment this segment is mentioned. lets begin with the beginning. The academic excellence of an individual is decided primarily on the basis of number of articles, books published by him. If it is an individual effort , all is well and good. But In many instances when the research is a collaborative effort, the issue of authorship arises. Any research project involves several steps like the basic idea or design, actually performing the experiment, collecting the data, reasoning out( analyzing) and finally coming to the conclusion. Any contribution in the above steps is considered as fit for authorship. Composing the text and describing the results or even writing the entire article does not in any way contribute to the scientific content of the research and as such does not merit authorship. It is not only controversial as to who should be listed as author but the order of listing is also a bone of contention. We will look at an interesting download on this issue later. kunda 1 of 1 File(s) World Health Day Handout.doc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Hi,i have few points for which views from the group will be appreciated1. A postgraduate, M.D., student who had done his thesis but the concept, design, to a large extent analysis and interpretation, and writing of the paper is done by the guide, who should be the first author?2. Resident who has helped in data analysis and writing in the paper after the work was done, whether co-authorship should be given to this new resident or just the acknowledgment?3. Suppose, the data is collected from casualty/ICU/emergency, should the M.S. or in-charge be the co-author or they should be acknowledged?Thanks.Best,Anita Kotwaninetrum From: drvijaythawani@...Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 02:32:50 +0000Subject: Re: authorship- Hi, After experiencing yesterday's tremor shocks in Himalayas which measured >5.6, I am back. For people living here that was not extra ordinary. On authorship: - The Chief investigator / principal investigator should be first author. - The first authorship should not be compromised to please the guide or head of department. - All those who contribute significantly on the scientific merit should get co-authorship. - It is always good to decide the authorship order at the protocol writing stage to save heart burn later. - Do not gift authorship to friends, colleugues or for getting authorship reciprocally. - Do not give coauthorship to head of department, if there is no contribution from the boss. Dr Vijay Thawani > > hello, > I am aware that the antennas are up the moment this segment is mentioned. > lets begin with the beginning. > The academic excellence of an individual is decided primarily on the basis of > number of articles, books published by him. If it is an individual effort , all > is well and good. But In many instances when the research is a collaborative > effort, the issue of authorship arises. > Any research project involves several steps like the basic idea or design, > actually performing the experiment, collecting the data, reasoning out( > analyzing) and finally coming to the conclusion. Any contribution in the above > steps is considered as fit for authorship. Composing the text and describing the > results or even writing the entire article does not in any way contribute to the > scientific content of the research and as such does not merit authorship. > > It is not only controversial as to who should be listed as author but the order > of listing is also a bone of contention. > We will look at an interesting download on this issue later. > kunda > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Hello, To make the issue more clear ( or more confusing) here is a copy of the template provided by one journal(JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACOTHREAPUETICS). It gives a fair idea of the type of contribution necessary for giving authorship. Contributor 1 Contributor 2 Contributor 3 Contributor 4 Concepts Design Definition of intellectual content Literature search Clinical studies Experimental studies Data acquisition Data analysis Statistical analysis Manuscript preparation Manuscript editing Manuscript review Guarantor The list of type of activity undertaken in research process is all exhaustive. kunda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Very interesting set of documents, Kunda, and these indeed as you write, are some of the more better known issues among most researchers and research teams. However, in reality it gets a little more complex than what these tables and prescriptions or lists suggest. It is not unusual to find one or more of the named principal investigators in a research team sleep through the entire project under the pretext that they are so busy with other jobs that they cannot find time till the time of writing up the results and presentation to a journal for publication. Which is when you find high activity from them. Yet in other situations for example where the entire project is a formative activity where the project is based on outputs, the pis often sleep and snore but still have to be named on the reports (some of them may tender fake apologies), and so on. I hope you get the drift. I guess I am seeking a lesson on the realpolitik of conducting a research project here. The question at this stage is, how does one negotiate with situations such as these? Have you ever come across a situation where working in a multiple membered team you find that some principal investigators who were named in the project perpetually sleep or do trivial work but would still demand that their names be on the authorship list? If yes, what are your strategies to deal with? (as lessons of life please throw in some suggestions about how not to lose friends and win enemies in that order, ;-), )Would be interested to learn from your experiences.ArinSent from my iPadOn 6/04/2011, at 1:27 AM, kunda gharpure <gharpurekunda@...> wrote: Hello, To make the issue more clear ( or more confusing) here is a copy of the template provided by one journal(JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACOTHREAPUETICS). It gives a fair idea of the type of contribution necessary for giving authorship. Contributor 1 Contributor 2 Contributor 3 Contributor 4 Concepts Design Definition of intellectual content Literature search Clinical studies Experimental studies Data acquisition Data analysis Statistical analysis Manuscript preparation Manuscript editing Manuscript review Guarantor The list of type of activity undertaken in research process is all exhaustive. kunda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Thanks Arin for the reply.I wanted the real life situation and answers. What is desirable and what is mentioned on journal web-site is known to many of us.We really want some answers when co-investigator has slept through out....you had put his name on the project initially thinking you would be help to you or he/she was interested at the beginning. At the time of writing paper some of them are not even ready to check the MS or keep it for long time. What to do in these situations?Cheers, AnitaCC: netrum To: netrum From: arin.basu@...Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 05:13:09 +1200Subject: Re: authorship- Very interesting set of documents, Kunda, and these indeed as you write, are some of the more better known issues among most researchers and research teams. However, in reality it gets a little more complex than what these tables and prescriptions or lists suggest. It is not unusual to find one or more of the named principal investigators in a research team sleep through the entire project under the pretext that they are so busy with other jobs that they cannot find time till the time of writing up the results and presentation to a journal for publication. Which is when you find high activity from them. Yet in other situations for example where the entire project is a formative activity where the project is based on outputs, the pis often sleep and snore but still have to be named on the reports (some of them may tender fake apologies), and so on. I hope you get the drift. I guess I am seeking a lesson on the realpolitik of conducting a research project here. The question at this stage is, how does one negotiate with situations such as these? Have you ever come across a situation where working in a multiple membered team you find that some principal investigators who were named in the project perpetually sleep or do trivial work but would still demand that their names be on the authorship list? If yes, what are your strategies to deal with? (as lessons of life please throw in some suggestions about how not to lose friends and win enemies in that order, ;-), )Would be interested to learn from your experiences.ArinSent from my iPadOn 6/04/2011, at 1:27 AM, kunda gharpure <gharpurekunda@...> wrote: Hello, To make the issue more clear ( or more confusing) here is a copy of the template provided by one journal(JOURNAL OF PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACOTHREAPUETICS). It gives a fair idea of the type of contribution necessary for giving authorship. Contributor 1 Contributor 2 Contributor 3 Contributor 4 Concepts Design Definition of intellectual content Literature search Clinical studies Experimental studies Data acquisition Data analysis Statistical analysis Manuscript preparation Manuscript editing Manuscript review Guarantor The list of type of activity undertaken in research process is all exhaustive. kunda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.