Abstract
Publishing in academia today is more challenging than what our predecessors experienced 20 years ago. Today, publishing an academic manuscript requires command of what it means to be an author, the concerns over digital information related to figures, and the peer review process. Issues concerning authorship can be readily addressed and corrected by adherence to a set of guidelines such as ICMJE. The advent of powerful software programs has allowed rendering of publication-quality images, but these programs are easily susceptible to presenting data in a more favorable light, whereas they should not affect the integrity and data represented. The peer review process provides germane critiques to screen out substandard manuscripts; however, it can be imperfect, which requires further review and study. Successfully publishing in academia requires much specialized knowledge, as well as a firm grasp of authorship, figures, and peer review.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dyer C. Lancet retracts Wakefield’s MMR paper. BMJ. 2010;340:c696.
The Lancet vaccine retraction. Wall Street Journal. February 3, 2010.
Deer B. MMR doctor Andrew Wakefield fixed data on autism. The Times. February 8, 2009.
Claxton LD. Scientific authorship. Part 2. History, recurring issues, practices, and guidelines. Mutat Res. 2005;589:31–45.
Filmore DLM. Scientific publishing: an abstract portrait. Today’s Chem Work. 2001:10:29.
Clarke BL. Multiple authorship trends in scientific papers. Science. 1964;143:822–824.
McCauley JE. Multiple authorship. Science. 1963;141:579.
Price DJ. Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press: 1963.
An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. The GUSTO investigators. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:673–682.
The teaching of scientific method. Science. 1891;17:281–285.
Pettit LC. An outline of the scientific method. Bios. 1948;19:240–251.
Dyer C. Lancet withdraws research paper and warns authors about rules of “gift authorship.” BMJ. 2008;337:a1711.
Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary. 11th ed., 2003.
Singer NW. Medical editors push for ghostwriting crackdown. New York Times. September 18, 2009.
Yoshikawa TT, Ouslander JG. Integrity in publishing: update on policies and statements on authorship, duplicate publications, and conflict of interest. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:155–157.
Cyranoski D Verdict: Hwang’s human stem cells were all fakes. Nature. 2006;439:122–123.
Hwang WS, Ryu YJ, Park JH, et al. Evidence of a pluripotent human embryonic stem cell line derived from a cloned blastocyst. Science. 2004;303:1669–1674.
Pearson H. Forensic software traces tweaks to images. Nature. 2006;439:520–521.
Kassirer JP, Campion EW. Peer review: crude and understudied, but indispensable. JAMA. 1994;272:96–97.
Friedberg EC. Peer review of scientific papers—a never-ending conundrum. DNA Repair (Amst). 2010;9:476–477.
Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review—scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ. 1999;318:44–45.
Spitzer WO. Is peer-reviewing fair? J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:819–820.
Goldbeck-Wood S. What makes a good reviewer of manuscripts? BMJ. 1998:316:86.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sadler, T.R. Publishing in Academia: Woes of Authorship, Figures, and Peer Review. Ther Innov Regul Sci 45, 145–150 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500208
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500208