How are authors’ contributions verified in the ICMJE model?

Plant Cell Reports - Tập 42 - Trang 1529-1530 - 2023
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva1
1Kagawa-ken, Japan

Tóm tắt

A recent editorial in Plant Cell Reports reaffirms what has been known for years, namely, that it follows the four ICMJE clauses of authorship. That editorial even provides a “perfect” model contribution statement. In this letter, I argue that in reality and in practice, authorship delimitations are not that clear-cut, nor are all contributions equal or equally weighted. More importantly, I opine that no matter how eloquently an author contribution statement is written, editors have no way to verify the veracity of those claims. In essence, absent authorship contribution verification, the ICMJE guidelines are practically useless. The responsibility for verification, even to determine authorship associated with papermills or the “ghost” contribution of text by AI like ChatGPT, lies entirely with editors and publishers. Although an unpopular meme, there is need for academic publishing to return to a state of no blind trust.

Tài liệu tham khảo

Flynn J (2023) Guest post—addressing paper mills and a way forward for Journal Security. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2023/04/04/guest-post-addressing-paper-mills-and-a-way-forward-for-journal-security/ [Accessed 6 Apr 2023] ICMJE (International Committee of Medical Journal Editors) (2022). Recommendations. https://www.icmje.org/icmje-recommendations.pdf [Accessed 6 Apr 2023] Stewart CN Jr, Hahne G (2023) Authorship and the importance of the author contribution statement. Plant Cell Reports (in Press). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-023-03007-8 Teixeira da Silva JA (2021) Abuse of ORCID’s weaknesses by authors who use paper mills. Scientometrics 126(7):6119–6125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-03996-x Teixeira da Silva JA (2022) Does the culture of science publishing need to change from the status quo principle of “trust me”? Nowotwory J Oncol 7(2):137–138. https://doi.org/10.5603/NJO.a2022.0001 Teixeira da Silva JA (2023) Is ChatGPT a valid author? Nurse Ed Pract 68:103600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2023.103600