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