Abstract
Background
Publication of a manuscript does not end an author’s responsibilities. Reasons to contact an author after publication include clarification, access to raw data, and collaboration. However, legitimate questions have been raised regarding whether these responsibilities generally are being met by corresponding authors of biomedical publications.
Questions/purposes
This study aims to establish (1) what proportion of corresponding authors accept the responsibility of correspondence; (2) identify characteristics of responders; and (3) assess email address decay with time. We hypothesize that the response rate is unrelated to journal impact factor.
Methods
We contacted 450 corresponding authors throughout various fields of biomedical research regarding the availability of additional data from their study, under the pretense of needing these data for a related review article. Authors were randomly selected from 45 journals whose impact factors ranged from 52 to 0; the source articles were published between May 2003 and May 2013. The proportion of corresponding authors who replied, along with author characteristics were recorded, as was the proportion of emails that were returned for inactive addresses; 446 authors were available for final analysis.
Results
Fifty-three percent (190/357) of the authors with working email addresses responded to our request. Clinical researchers were more likely to reply than basic/translational scientists (51% [114/225] versus 34% [76/221]; p < 0.001). Impact factor and other author characteristics did not differ. Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of replying decreased by 15% per year (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79–0.91; p < 0.001), and showed a positive relationship between clinical research and response (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3–2.9; p = 0.001). In 2013 all email addresses (45/45) were reachable, but within 10 years, 49% (21/43) had become invalid.
Conclusions
Our results suggest that contacting corresponding authors is problematic throughout the field of biomedical research. Defining the responsibilities of corresponding authors by journals more explicitly—particularly after publication of their manuscript—may increase the response rate on data requests. Possible other ways to improve communication after research publication are: (1) listing more than one email address per corresponding author, eg, an institutional and personal address; (2) specifying all authors’ email addresses; (3) when an author leaves an institution, send an automated reply offering alternative ways to get in touch; and (4) linking published manuscripts to research platforms.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–533.
Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA. 1997;277:1224–1228.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–89.
Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–1474.
Leberg PL, Neigel JE. Enhancing the retrievability of population genetic survey data? An assessment of animal mitochondrial DNA studies. Evolution. 1999;53:1961–1965.
Menendez ME, Bot AG, Hageman MG, Neuhaus V, Mudgal CS, Ring D. Computerized adaptive testing of psychological factors: relation to upper-extremity disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e149.
Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712.
Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221.
Savage CJ, Vickers AJ. Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PloS One. 2009;4:e7078.
Science and Scholarly Research Division. Journal Citation Reports®. Available at: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/. Accessed November 3, 2013.
Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials. 2005;2:209–217.
Teunis T, Nota SP, Hornicek FJ, Schwab JH, Lozano-Calderon SA. Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal humerus for tumor resection: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2245–2253.
Vasilevsky NA, Brush MH, Paddock H, Ponting L, Tripathy SJ, Larocca GM, Haendel MA. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;1:e148.
Vines TH, Albert AY, Andrew RL, Debarre F, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Moore JS, Renaut S, Rennison DJ. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Curr Biol. 2014;24:94–97.
Vines TH, Andrew RL, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Kane NC, Moore JS, Moyers BT, Renaut S, Rennison DJ, Veen T, Yeaman S. Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J. 2013;27:1304–1308.
Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PloS One. 2011;6:e26828.
Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am Psychol. 2006;61:726–728.
Wren JD, Grissom JE, Conway T. E-mail decay rates among corresponding authors in MEDLINE: the ability to communicate with and request materials from authors is being eroded by the expiration of e-mail addresses. EMBO Rep. 2006;7:122–127.
Acknowledgments
We thank Jos de Bruin, Drs and David Ring MD, PhD (Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) for their thorough reading and helpful comments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
One of the authors (TT) received research grants from the Prince Bernhard Culture Fund & Kuitse Fung (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (less than USD 10,000), and Fundatie van de Vrijvrouwe van Renswoude te’s-Gravenhage (The Hague, The Netherlands) (less than USD 10,000).
One of the authors (JS) certifies that he, or a member of his immediate family, has or may receive payments or benefits, during the study period from Stryker (Kalamazoo, MI, USA) (less than USD 10,000), and Biom’up (Saint-Priest, France) (less than USD 10,000).
All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research ® neither advocates nor endorses the use of any treatment, drug, or device. Readers are encouraged to always seek additional information, including FDA-approval status, of any drug or device prior to clinical use.
Each author certifies that his or her institution waived approval for the human protocol for this investigation and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research.
Appendices
Appendix 1. Selected journals
Ranking | Journal | Impact factor | General focus* |
---|---|---|---|
1 | New England Journal of Medicine | 52 | Clinical research |
2 | Lancet | 39 | Clinical research |
3 | Journal of the American Medical Association | 30 | Clinical research |
4 | Lancet Oncology | 25 | Clinical research |
5 | Cancer Cell | 25 | Basic science |
6 | Journal of Clinical Oncology | 18 | Clinical research |
7 | British Medical Journal | 17 | Clinical research |
8 | Molecular Cell | 15 | Basic science |
9 | Molecular Psychiatry | 15 | Basic science |
10 | Genome Research | 14 | Basic science |
11 | Journal of the National Cancer Institute | 14 | Clinical research |
12 | Acta Crystallographica Section D | 14 | Basic science |
13 | Annals of Internal Medicine | 14 | Internal/general medicine |
14 | Developmental Cell | 13 | Basic science |
15 | Genes & Development | 12 | Basic science |
16 | Journal of Cell Biology | 11 | Basic science |
17 | Cell Research | 11 | Basic science |
18 | Molecular Biology and Evolution | 10 | Basic science |
19 | Leukemia | 10 | Basic science |
20 | Cancer Research | 8.7 | Basic science |
21 | Cell Death & Differentiation | 8.4 | Basic science |
22 | Nucleic Acids Research | 8.3 | Basic science |
23 | Clinical Cancer Research | 7.8 | Clinical research |
24 | Stem Cells | 7.7 | Basic science |
25 | Annals of Oncology | 7.4 | Clinical research |
26 | Canadian Medical Association Journal | 6.5 | Clinical research |
27 | Journal of Internal Medicine | 6.5 | Internal/general medicine |
28 | Annals of Surgery | 6.3 | Surgery |
29 | American Journal of Transplantation | 6.2 | Clinical research |
30 | Journal of Neuro-Oncology | 6.2 | Clinical research |
31 | Cell Cycle | 5.2 | Basic science |
32 | Annals of Medicine | 5.1 | Internal/general medicine |
33 | Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry | 4.9 | Surgery |
34 | American Journal of Preventive Medicine | 3.9 | Internal/general medicine |
35 | Liver Transplantation | 3.9 | Surgery |
36 | Journal of Molecular Biology | 3.9 | Basic science |
37 | Shock Journal | 2.6 | Surgery |
38 | Journal of Pain and Symptom Management | 2.6 | Internal/general medicine |
39 | International Journal of Biological Macromolecules | 2.6 | Basic science |
40 | Journal of Investigative Surgery | 1.3 | Surgery |
41 | Biological Trace Element Research | 1.3 | Basic science |
42 | Yonsei Medical Journal | 1.3 | Surgery |
43 | Preparative Biochemistry & Biotechnology | 0.41 | Basic science |
44 | International Surgery | 0.31 | Surgery |
45 | Scottish Medical Journal | 0.29 | Internal/general medicine |
Appendix 2. Sent email request
Dear Dr [author’s initials and last name]:
With great interest we read your article: [manuscript title]. We would like to include your article in our systematic review; however, we need some additional data not mentioned in your manuscript. Please let us know if you would be so kind to provide us with this data.
Kind regards,
T. Teunis MD
Research Fellow
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
phone: (+1) 617-724-9563
email: tteunis@partners.org
fax: (+1) 617-643-1274
Appendix 3. Explanatory email
Dear Dr [author’s initials and last name]:
Thank you for your response. We want to inform you that our previous email was intentionally misleading: we are conducting a survey on the response rate of corresponding authors. To minimize bias, we were not able to tell you this in our previous correspondence. Your paper was randomly selected. Our intent is to see how many corresponding authors actually accept the role of “corresponding author” and are willing to share data on email request. We are not actually asking for any additional data. All results are handled confidentially and are from this point on anonymized. Your name will not be linked to any response provided. If you wish to have a copy of our study results/report, let us know by email and we will send you a copy electronically. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. We apologize for any distress or inconvenience, and thank you for your response.
Sincerely,
Teun Teunis MD
Research fellow
&
Joseph H. Schwab MD, MA
Principal Investigator, Chief of Spine Surgery
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery
Massachusetts General Hospital
Harvard Medical School
Address: Room 3.946, Yawkey Building
Massachusetts General Hospital
55 Fruit Street
Boston, MA 02114, USA
phone: 617-724-9563
email1: tteunis@mgh.harvard.edu
email2: jhschwab@mgh.harvard.edu
fax: 617-643-1274
About this article
Cite this article
Teunis, T., Nota, S.P.F.T. & Schwab, J.H. Do Corresponding Authors Take Responsibility for Their Work? A Covert Survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res 473, 729–735 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3868-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-014-3868-3