A Platform (Authorships.org) for the Objective Qualification and Order of Academic Authorship in Medical and Science Journals: Development and Evaluation Study Using the Design Science Research Methodology

Background The qualification and order of authorship in scientific manuscripts are the main disputes in collaborative research work. Objective The aim of this project was to develop an open-access web-based platform for objective decision-making of authorship qualification and order in medical and science journals. Methods The design science process methodology was used to develop suitable software for authorship qualification and order. The first part of the software was designed to differentiate between qualification for authorship versus acknowledgment, using items of the recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The second part addressed the order of authorship, using the analytical hierarchy process for objective multiple criteria decision-making and ranking. The platform was evaluated qualitatively (n=30) and quantitatively (n=18) using a dedicated questionnaire, by an international panel of medical and biomedical professionals and research collaborators worldwide. Results Authorships.org represents an open-access software compatible with all major platforms and web browsers. Software usability and output were evaluated and presented for 3 existing clinical and biomedical research studies. All 18 international evaluators felt that the Authorships.org platform was easy to use or remained neutral. Moreover, 59% (n=10) were satisfied with the software output results while the rest were unsure, 59% (n=10) would definitely use it for future projects while 41% (n=7) would consider it, 94% (n=16) felt it may prove useful to eliminate disputes regarding authorship, 82% (n=14) felt that it should become mandatory for manuscript submission to journals, and 53% (n=9) raised concerns regarding the potential unethical use of the software as a tool. Conclusions Authorships.org allows transparent evaluation of authorship qualification and order in academic medical and science journals. Objectified proof of authorship contributions may become mandatory during manuscript submission in high-quality academic journals.

[1]  G. Macfarlane What to do about . . . authorship? , 2021, British journal of pain.

[2]  Kun-Ha Hwang The Ajax Dilemma in Authorship. , 2021, The Journal of craniofacial surgery.

[3]  A. Landry,et al.  Authorship anatomy: a guide for scholars , 2020, BMJ.

[4]  Brian Burtch,et al.  Credit where credit’s due , 2019, Communications Physics.

[5]  Amber Dance,et al.  Authorship: Who's on first? , 2012, Nature.

[6]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  An empirical analysis of the use of alphabetical authorship in scientific publishing , 2012, J. Informetrics.

[7]  Tobias Mettler,et al.  A novel open-source web-based platform promoting collaboration of healthcare professionals and biostatisticians: A design science approach , 2012, Informatics for health & social care.

[8]  Marten Schönherr,et al.  Outline of a design science research process , 2009, DESRIST.

[9]  K. Strange Authorship: why not just toss a coin? , 2008, American journal of physiology. Cell physiology.

[10]  Michael G. Sarr,et al.  Consensus Statement on Surgery Journal Authorship*—2006 , 2006, The Annals of thoracic surgery.

[11]  Jan Bosch,et al.  Software Architecture Analysis of Usability , 2004, EHCI/DS-VIS.

[12]  Oswald Marinoni,et al.  Implementation of the analytical hierarchy process with VBA in ArcGIS , 2004, Comput. Geosci..

[13]  M. Blaser In a World of Black and White, Helicobacter pylori Is Gray , 1999, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[14]  M. Levine,et al.  What to Do , 1918, California state journal of medicine.

[15]  Jan Bosch,et al.  ENGINEERING HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION AND INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS , 2005 .

[16]  T. Saaty The analytic hierarchy process : planning, priority setting, resource allocation , 1980 .