on unauthorized authorship again, thanks to Marilyn’s post here from WSJ Health Blog. Anyone a member of the “international assoc of med journal articles”?
Archive for November, 2007
Catching Up …
Let’s see … while I’ve been trying to save the world from bad grantsmanship, last week the NSF released its FY 2006 academic R&D expenditure data … no payline news likely to be forthcoming Read the rest of this entry »
Building Academic Legitimacy
Update: The reason for these meetings can be better understood in light of the VCU-PM master research services agreement.
Not events I would want or expect to come across on a local calendar …
Nov 7 Philip Morris senior leadership summit (provost and vice presidents only) 3-5 p.m.
Nov 7 Philip Morris reception for deans, PM-funded faculty and DoDs 5-7 p.m.
Aside from their outlandishly inethical practices with regard to manipulating research, publications, and policy, Philip Morris et al. have one product line, and that product line is known to be highly addictive, toxic, and lethal. Profits used to fund tobacco industry grants are earned at the cost of millions of lives and billions of dollars worldwide. Why would any academic health center solicit and accept grants and gifts funded solely and directly through the sale of a product they themselves must counsel each and every patient, employee, faculty, student, and community member to avoid or stop using … an industry in direct conflict with their mission to protect and advance public and personal health.
Instead, an academic legitimacy dream come true: the newly constructed $350+ million Philip Morris USA Center for Research & Technology is the flagship member of Virginia BioTechnology Park, “a joint initiative of Virginia Commonwealth University [which gives PM employees affiliate faculty appointments] and the city of Richmond, situated on 34-acres adjacent to the VCU Medical Center [including the NCI-designated Massey Cancer Center, which lists Philip Morris and Altria among its corporate partners]” and home to the VCU Office of Vice President for Research (with the presidentially appointed VPR on comfortable terms with Philip Morris … also a recipient of NIH funding from ORI’s research on research integrity program).
Update: Science and The Chronicle of Higher Education (which includes a thread of comments) note that Philip Morris ended its PM External Research Program. However, this is not the end of PM funding at Universities.
Read the rest of this entry »
Publication Bias Against Negative Studies
Nature Clinical Practice Neurology includes an editorial on publication bias against negative results in clinical trials. The authors ask (and answer), “Who is to blame? Journal editors, commercial sponsors, and investigators (the would-be authors) all stand accused.” Read the rest of this entry »
No Suprise Authorship Allowed!
This commentary exchange is so important I am pulling it out into general circulation. Folks, listing someone as an author without asking first is wrong on so many levels I don’t know where to begin (ICMJE guidelines for starters) & frankly cannot do the topic justice on this three-alarm afternoon here. For now, suffice it to say … no one should ever serendipitously learn that he or she has been unknowingly (& without permission) listed as an author on a submitted manuscript or published article! Update: Folks – lots of thoughtful & thought-provoking commentary, well worth the long scroll. Even Better Update: Drugmonkey has started a terrific (& needed) discussion on responsible material sharing (journal policies, replication of results in other labs, community of science, etc.). Please go forth and comment!
Even BETTER Update: Marilyn alerted us to the article “The write position. A survey of perceived contributions to papers based on byline position and number of authors” just published in EMBO reports. Of note to this discussion, “40% of the respondents … agreed that granting authorship to someone who does not meet journal authorship criteria was a common occurrence” – actually an increase from 25 years ago when an APA survey (cited by Wren et al.) showed that “28% of respondents reported having been involved in a situation where they believed that their authorship was not commensurate with their input; 21% considered honorary authorship reasonable” (Vasta, 1981).
Unusual Update: And then there is the punishment for grad student plagiarism proposed to Randy Cohen, which The Ethicist of the NYT Magazine concludes would be ineffectual.
Redirect Update: Marilyn posted under About another egregious incident of unauthorized authorship from the WSJ Health Blog.
Further update & suggestion in Nature: Marilyn points out where the offending article that started this thread was published (with flaws intact, see her comments below) – Am J Cardiol 2007;100:1609-1613 – and Kevin Yager at NIST advocates in Nature that each co-author “describe his or her contribution and … sign a final description of the division of labour” (this in response to Nature’s suggested approach to maintaining author accountability).
CTSAness Part 2: CTSA in Action
The October newsletter of the Association for Patient-Oriented Research focuses on the inaugural year of CTSAness and includes commentaries from 7 of the original 12 PIs, a survey of clinical investigators at CTSA sites, and articles with titles such as, “CTSA’s Enter A Bad Patch.” Indeed. (reminder, CTSA = Clinical & Translational Science Award … next round of applications will be stressing FedEx & UPS this Wed.
The survey of 52 investigators (from the original 12 sites) is enlightening, especially since they were contacted prior to the mid-Sept budget massacre. 51 of the 52 had heard about the CTSA at their institution – which is a higher percentage than I have experienced at our site. More telling is the fact that 35 respondents felt their research had not been affected at all by the CTSA, with 11 worse off and only 6 better off (3 of those 6 at the same institution). The worst of the worse off were former GCRC-based investigators. No surprise there. The better off had received help with study design (a core function that does work well at our site) or pilot funding (another CTSA resource that works well locally).
In a brief piece on the arduous transition from GCRC to CRC within the PCIR … a process in which NIH personnel have inserted themselves … APOR notes that “the range of new tasks and newly upgraded and reformulated old tasks has led to extraordinary increases in effort. … There are many committee meetings to attend (three times more, one Co-Director observed). … There are also streams of requests and guidelines emanating from Bethesda.” Talk about an understatement (& not just with regard to the former GCRCs).
APOR sought feedback and advice from the CTSA directors at UC Davis, UCSF, OHSU, Duke, Rockefeller, U Penn, and UT-Houston. I want to move to Houston, where Dr. Frank Arnett claims with regard to disappointments, “none so far”; and to early mistakes, “So far, I’m not sure we made any, except perhaps underestimating how difficult it is to simplify the regulatory burden and the informatics complexities.” He also notes “A physical home is very important.” Damn – that’s our problem – no identifiable building, suite, wing, etc. for the CTSA. I’m sure our director will get right on that.
Common issues cited by the other directors included underestimating the administrative burden and the lack of budgetary flexibility. UCSF probably gave the most honest and valuable assessment of the program during the first 10 months. UC Davis and Oregon also provided thoughtful feedback in accordance with what had been asked.
Oh, and there is a job posting for a Deputy Director for Clinical and Translational Research at NCRR. “Candidates should be outstanding communicators and known and respected as distinguished individuals of outstanding competence.” All you competent folks please send your CV, bibliography, and 2 letters of recommendation to NCRR by November 30, 2007.
