|
|
Authorship of CDC or ATSDR
Publications
Reference Point: CDC
Associate Director for Management and Operations
Material Superseded: None
Manual Guide, General Administration, CDC-69,
12/1/95
I. PURPOSE
This guide provides policies and processes to assist
CDC*authors
in developing and preparing manuscripts for publication.
II.
BACKGROUND
Comments and suggestions solicited from members of the
Excellence in Science Committee, the Office of the General Counsel, and the
Procurement and Grants Office were incorporated in this document.
The planning and development process of a CDC project
and preparation of manuscript(s) for publication should include
consideration of these basic principles:
- Development of outline for the project.
- Design and writing of an approved protocol.
- Responsibility for observations and acquisition of
data.
- Scientific leadership in the execution of the
study.
- Analysis and critical interpretation of the data
(including the review of literature and evaluation of evidence).
- Writing the manuscript (drafting, revising, and
reviewing).
- Responsibility for the final version of the
manuscript.
- Ability to defend the content of the publication.
A minimum basis for authorship requires active
participation in all of the following:
- The conception or design of work, data collection,
and/or data analysis and interpretation of data.
- Drafting the manuscript or reviewing and revising
critical sections. A critical section is defined as the specific portion
of the manuscript for which a coauthor claims expert defense
responsibility.
- Assuming responsibility for the final version of
the manuscript.
CDC recognizes that no single set of rules governing
all aspects of the assignment of authorship is likely to be developed and
that authorship questions associated with each manuscript must be answered
individually. Nevertheless, it is useful for CDC to have a set of principles
and guidelines to facilitate and standardize decision making that involves
authorship.
These guidelines in no way replace or supersede official
CDC clearance procedures (Manual Guide--General Administration No. CDC-18);
nor do they preclude the formulation of more complex and stringent
procedures designed to meet the needs of specific organizational components
within CDC. Rather, these guidelines should be considered as a 'universal'
baseline, to be applied in all contexts within CDC in which authorship of
agency-sponsored material is in question. Additional regulations, standards,
and review processes can be developed and implemented as deemed desirable by
individual components of the two agencies.
III.
PROJECT PROTOCOL
A. Development
Prior to the beginning of a project, the following issues
should be decided upon and put in writing:
- The number of manuscripts that are expected to
evolve from the project.
- The subjects to be covered.
- The identity of all persons assigned to coauthor
the reports.
These items should be included in the 'scope of work'
if the project is to be generated under a grant, cooperative agreement, or
contract.
Resolution of these issues calls for discussion among
participants, agreement in advance, and interim discussions to confirm that
original assignments are still appropriate or have been revised as needed.
For example, circumstances during a study may change and contributions of
designated coauthors may be substantially greater or less than originally
anticipated. A final decision on manuscripts, subjects, and the identity and
order of coauthors should be reached before beginning the first draft of a
report.
B. Guidelines for
Flexibility or Special Consideration
If in the course of a project, an individual who was not
named in the protocol makes a major contribution to the project meriting
coauthorship (e.g., would have originally been listed in the Acknowledgments
or Technical Assistance sections), she or he should be added, in appropriate
rank order, as a coauthor. If the project was undertaken with CDC funding,
it may be necessary to make modifications in the contract, cooperative
agreement, or grant.
IV.
AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA
A. Description
Being the primary author or a coauthor is both an honor
and a responsibility. Having one's name on a paper implies acceptance of
responsibility for the facts and the conclusions of the paper. All coauthors
should be able to defend the design, execution, and conclusions of the study
if challenged. Managers and supervisors are encouraged to give more junior
members of the investigative team opportunities to be first author whenever
justifiable and feasible.
Given the degree of specialization and the complexity of
today's research methods, each member of the publishing team must be able to
defend their accredited contribution independently. Collectively, the team
must be able to explicate and defend the content of the report. If a
collaborator's contribution is too narrow to meet this description (e.g.,
involvement in study design but not in drafting or revising the report),
that person should be given credit in some manner other than the assignment
of coauthorship (see Section V).
No one should be listed as an author without his or her
knowledge and expressed consent. Persons who qualify as coauthors may choose
not to be given credit; for example, when it is necessary to protect the
confidentiality of data from a given institution.
No person shall be listed as coauthor of a report merely
by virtue of his or her position in the responsible organization. "Work done
under the auspices. . ." does not constitute coauthorship--even if the
person in question is Director (Head, Chief, Department Chair, etc.) of the
organizational unit responsible for the work.
The average number of authors per communication is
increasing. In part, this increase is due to the needs of projects for
contributions from many individuals, frequently those with different
specialized skills. While multiauthorship is not a problem in itself, it
raises many issues such as criteria for inclusion as an author, ability of
each author to evaluate and defend all aspects of a study, sequence of
listing of authors, and separation of various results to increase numbers of
communications and authorship citations. To clarify some of these concerns,
consideration should be given in interdisciplinary studies to preparing
brief statements of the exact contribution of each author to the work
described in each communication.
B. Guidelines for
Flexibility or Special Consideration
To minimize misunderstandings, the collaborating group
should be systematic, careful, and open in identifying and assessing
coauthorship expectations, entitlement, and order of appearance of names of
coauthors. The CDC members of the planning group should be aware that they
represent CDC to outside collaborators and should be sensitive to agency
concerns about continuing productive relationships with outside agencies and
individuals.
The extension of coauthorship by CDC to non-CDC staff
(and vice versa) is sometimes a condition determining whether the agency
will become involved in an investigation or will have access to data. Such
an agreement is discouraged because it may not reflect the effort that is
usually needed to warrant coauthorship. However, CDC staff may sometimes
determine that such an agreement is in the public interest. If so, everyone
must understand that this is an exception to the conditions of authorship
otherwise described in this policy. It should in no way be construed to
apply to extension of authorship privileges to individuals with supervisory
responsibilities for an author's position in the CDC organization who did
not make contributions to the publication material as described in the
minimum conditions for authorship (see Section II).
Criteria for authorship on studies done under contract
should be the same as for studies conducted by CDC staff. Contract language
should be written and reviewed for adherence to CDC authorship guidelines.
According to regulations, contractors cannot 'sponsor' any work without
approval from a CDC employee. Since all work done under contract is the
property of the Federal government, scientists working under contract have
expressed concern about potential limitations on their ability to publish
the results of their studies. Contractors should have manuscripts reviewed
by CDC staff as part of a peer review process prior to submission for
publication. However, scientists working under contract have the right to
submit manuscripts for publication without CDC approval if the contract
language does not specifically prohibit such publication. Manuscripts which
have not been
subjected to formal CDC clearance or approval should have a clear disclaimer
to that effect. Authorship issues should be discussed and agreed to before
and during the course of a project to assure that contributions are credited
appropriately. If significant changes occur in contributions by authors
during the course of the project and manuscript preparation, the contract
should be amended to credit authors' contributions accordingly.
C. Determination of Primary
Author
The primary author should be determined by assessing
actual contributions in the conception, planning, and execution of the
study. On occasion, when two or more investigators have contributed equally
or nearly equally to a project, the one who actually writes the paper and
coordinates the editorial review process should be listed as the primary
author. If the primary author fails to produce a draft manuscript within an
agreed-upon time frame and someone else prepares the first draft of the
report, the latter collaborator should be listed as the primary author.
D. Listing of Secondary
Authors
1. Criteria
Secondary authors should be listed in a sequence
generally consistent with the magnitude and pertinence of their input, as
judged by the collaborating group.
2. Guidelines for Flexibility or Special Consideration
The primary author should remember that an individual's
contribution will often be judged to be substantially greater by that
individual than by his or her colleagues. If a collaborator's contributions
are not of a magnitude that warrants coauthorship credit, such contribution
should be appropriately listed in the Acknowledgments section (see Section
V).
V.
CREDIT LINES OTHER THAN AUTHORSHIP
A. Criteria
Although not listed as coauthors, individuals who have
provided special assistance in the study should be given credit.
B. Guidelines for
Flexibility or Special Consideration
Persons who have contributed intellectually to the paper
but whose contributions do not justify coauthorship may be listed in an
Acknowledgment section and their contributions described (e.g., advice,
critical review of the study proposal, data collection, participation in the
clinical trial, editorial assistance, clerical assistance).
Such persons must have given their permission for the
author to include their names in the Acknowledgment section. This permission
should be obtained during the early stages of manuscript preparation/review
so that contributors are aware of where and how their names will appear.
In journals that accept a Technical Assistance byline,
the names of those who provided support or service functions (e.g.,
laboratory technologists, statistical assistants, photographers,
illustrators, computer operators, reference librarians, contractors, and
clerical assistants) should be listed there. In other journals, these
individuals and others who helped in one way or another, but not to the
extent of meriting coauthorship, should be included in the Acknowledgment or
other type of credits section.
VI.
MANUSCRIPT APPROVAL BEFORE PUBLICATION
A. Drafts
Each draft of a manuscript should be shared with all
coauthors. Such drafts should include authorship and other credits to
prevent misunderstandings and promote timely resolution of disagreements. If
copyrighted material is incorporated into the manuscript, the material
should be properly attributed and, in some cases, permission to use the
copyrighted work may be necessary.
B. Final
All coauthors must approve the manuscript before it is
submitted for clearance and publication.
C. Guidelines for
Flexibility or Special Consideration
If the primary author is from CDC, he or she should
obtain a written statement from any outside coauthor that the following
conditions have been met:
- The coauthor approves the report as he or she has
reviewed it.
- The coauthor has obtained all necessary clearance
from his or her institution.
If the primary author is not from CDC, then the senior
CDC author is responsible for approval and clearance through appropriate CDC
channels.
VII.
ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Laws, regulations, policies, and guidelines are
insufficient to prevent intentional unethical conduct. However, the failure
to carefully consider ethical principles can cause significant harm to
personal and institutional credibility and erode public trust. It is
particularly important for CDC authors and peer reviewers to consider the
following principles:
- Redundant and duplicate publications
All manuscripts are
assumed to be primary publications, unless a full statement of prior or
partial publication is included when the paper is submitted to the
journal editor.
Exceptions to this rule may be publications in
another language or country. All individual circumstances cannot be
addressed in these guidelines, but the prevailing rule is that full
detail of prior publication must be submitted to the editor, if
applicable. (Exception rules have been formulated by
The International Committee of Medical Journal
Editors, published in The New England
Journal of Medicine, Vol. 324, No. 6, Feb.7, 1991, Uniform Requirements
for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals.) |
- Disclosure of potential conflict of interest
Conflict of interest
exists when an author or reviewer has ties to activities that could
inappropriately influence objective evaluation of the scientific methods
and conclusions described in the manuscript.
Financial and personal relationships as well as
professional competition are important areas to examine for potential
conflicts of interest.
Known or potential conflicts of interest must be
disclosed in a statement included in the cover letter to the editor when
a paper is submitted for publication. This letter must be signed by all
authors. |
Plagiarism is the act
of claiming credit for passages, ideas, or quotations from someone
else's work. Careful attention to proper accreditation is an
increasingly stringent requirement in today's electronic document
environment.
Plagiarism is included in the Federal definition
of reportable scientific misconduct. |
The Associate Director for Science, Office of the
Director, is the primary official responsible for all matters related to
scientific misconduct at CDC.
VIII.
ELECTRONIC PUBLICATIONS
CDC agrees with The International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors who include in their definition of published material the
dissemination of information through an electronic journal. Therefore,
electronic publications should be included in all considerations as
described in Section VII.
IX.
COPYRIGHT
Works created by Federal employees as part of their
official duties cannot be copyrighted in the United States. Upon acceptance
of a manuscript for publication, Federal authors should submit to journals a
notice (suggested format available from the Office of the General Counsel)
that the work is a work of the United States government and, therefore,
there is no copyright to transfer. If a journal will not accept this notice
and requests that an author sign the journal's copyright transfer form, the
journal's form should be submitted to the Office of the General Counsel for
review. If there are multiple authors, some of whom are non-Federal, the
Federal employee should submit to journals a notice (suggested format
available from the Office of the General Counsel) that the agency considers
the article a work of the United States government and, thus, they have no
copyright to transfer. In some cases, the Federal contribution to the
article might be so insignificant that the Federal government would not
assert that it is a work of the United States.
Although the content of an article authored by Federal
employees may not be copyrighted, journals typically copyright the format in
which the article is published. This copyright on format may inhibit the
agency's ability to freely copy the article as it appears in the journal.
Therefore, if the publication is of such a nature that wide distribution is
sought by the agency (e.g., guidelines), the authors should seek a license
from the journal to freely copy and distribute the article as it was
published. This license should be negotiated prior to publication of the
article. The Office of the General Counsel is available to assist in this
process.
*References to CDC also apply to ATSDR
|