Skip to main content

Table 5 Thematic grouping of text-based responses describing why/why not the ICMJE should be revised to consider patient partners

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

Category N (%)a Example statements
Clearer definition(s) of patient contributions needed 7 (22.6) “Guidelines should clearly state the terms and conditions for the patient as an author or a partner author.”
“Providing clarity would improve editors’ and authors’ confidence to include patients in research.”
Criteria needs to be revised to protect patients 3 (9.7) “It could take into account the power relations and distributions of patients.”
Depends on certain circumstances 5 (16.1) “But to limited extent. In a clinical trial role should be limited. In case report, may be role should be more.”
Not a common issue 3 (9.7) “How common is the issue of patients being involved as authors of scientific papers? If this is relatively rare then possibly mention of this in the guidelines would be sufficient.”
Criteria are complete 3 (9.7) “I think the criteria look complete from my perspective”
Patients unlikely to meet all criteria 6 (19.4) “I think the accountability criteria may be challenging for some patients.”
Other 8 (25.8) “But would need wider discussion in academic community”
  1. aThere were 31 unique statements provided, but some were coded as falling into two categories