Skip to main content

Table 6 Thematic grouping of text-based responses describing why patient should/should not be required to have an academic affiliation to publish

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 statement(s)
Depends on circumstances 3 (12.5) “Highly recommendable but under unusual circumstances e.g highly qualified individual who is a pensioner, exceptions may be allowed.”
Similar process for patients and researchers 3 (12.5) “Just like clinicians don’t necessarily have academic affiliation, neither should patients. Nonetheless, if included they should be fully aware of all research aspects (including meeting authorship criteria)”
Inappropriate expectation (for affiliation) 12 (50.0) “Since their involvement is as a patient or member of the public, I see no reason to require an academic appointment.”
Moral justification for patient authorship without affiliation 2 (8.3) “I am thinking particularly of indigenous, LGBTQ, and other marginalized populations and the issue of epistemic injustice. They must be able to have a voice without being part of an organization/system that may seem oppressive etc. to them. This goes back to my point that individuals should be responsible for their contributions and their expertise but not for the expertise of others. The epistemic injustice issue is of particular concern to me.”
Other 5 (20.8) “Up to the PI of the study”
“The institution where the work originates from is their affiliation”
  1. aThere were 24 unique statements provided, but some were coded as falling into two categories