This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (12)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kay Dickersin, PhD; Roberta Scherer, PhD; Eunike Sri Tyas Suci, MA; Michelle Gil-Montero

JAMA. 2002;287:2772-2774.

Context  It is not known whether articles with group authorship (ie, with a research group name listed as the author) are difficult to identify or whether use of group authorship may lead to problems with citation.

Methods  To examine ways in which reports of controlled trials with group authorship are indexed and citations counted in bibliographic databases, we conducted a cross-sectional study in January 2000. We identified 47 controlled trials funded by the National Eye Institute and 285 associated articles. Between January and August 2000, we searched PubMed and Science Citation Index (SCI) and recorded the citation practices for these articles. Our main outcome measures were ways in which trial reports were listed in PubMed and SCI and number of citations to each report by type of authorship.

Results  Of the 285 published reports identified, 126 (44%) had group authorship, 109 (38%) had modified group authorship (listing individual names plus the name of the research group), and 50 (18%) had named authors only. In PubMed, no group authors were listed in the author field (per MEDLINE rules); in SCI, group-authored reports generally were incorrectly attributed (first name on investigator list [35.3%], first name on writing committee [25.5%], contact name [16.7%], anonymous [16.7%], and other [5.9%]). Using the SCI general search, we identified citations to 16.7% of group-authored reports, compared with citations to 96.9% of reports with modified group authorship and 93.9% of citations to reports with named authors only. Other systematic search methods found that more than 98% of group-authored reports actually had been cited and that group-authored reports were cited more than other reports.

Conclusions  Indexing systems are not optimally adapted to group authorship. We recommend that indexing services change their practices to include group authors in the author field to help correct the problem.

Author Affiliations: Departments of Community Health (Dr Dickersin and Ms Gil-Montero) and Sociology (Ms Suci), Brown University, Providence, RI; and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore (Dr Scherer).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis
Patsopoulos et al.
BMJ 2006;332:1061-1064.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Trauma care research and the war on uncertainty
Roberts et al.
BMJ 2005;331:1094-1096.
FULL TEXT  

Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research
Ioannidis
JAMA 2005;294:218-228.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Registering Clinical Trials
Dickersin and Rennie
JAMA 2003;290:516-523.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Authorship for Research Groups
Flanagin et al.
JAMA 2002;288:3166-3168.
FULL TEXT  

Not fast enough?
Stanbrook
CMAJ 2002;167:738-738.
FULL TEXT