Skip to main content

Table 3 Editors-in-Chief perceptions of appropriateness of ICMJE authorship criteria in relation to patient partnership

From: Editors-in-chief perceptions of patients as (co) authors on publications and the acceptability of ICMJE authorship criteria: a cross-sectional survey

  N (%)
In your view, is it appropriate for patient partners to be authors or co-authors on published biomedical research articles? (N = 107)
 Yes 74 (69.2)
 No 33 (30.8)
In your view, do you think the ICMJE authorship criteria should be revised to be more inclusive to patient partners? (N = 109)
 Yes 39 (35.8)
 No 39 (35.8)
 Unsure 31 (28.4)
In your view, which criteria of the ICMJE authorship criteria would a patient partner be likely to meet?
Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work (N = 109) Yes 70 (64.2)
No 28 (25.7)
Unsure 11 (10.1)
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content (N = 109) Yes 61 (56.0)
No 34 (31.2)
Unsure 14 (12.8)
Final approval of the version to be published (N = 109) Yes 74 (67.9)
No 21 (19.3)
Unsure 14 (12.8)
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved (N = 108) Yes 46 (42.6)
No 39 (36.1)
Unsure 23 (21.3)
Should patients have to have an academic affiliation to publish as an author/co-author? (N = 108)
 Yes 18 (16.7)
 No 80 (74.1)
 Unsure 10 (9.3)