The author who wasn’t there? Fairness and attribution in publications following access to population biobanks

Abstract

We conducted a document analysis that explored publication ethics and authorship in the context of population biobanks from both a theoretical (e.g. normative documents) and practical (e.g. biobank-specific documentation) perspective. The aim was to provide an overview of the state of authorship attribution in population biobanks and attempt to fill the gap in discussions around the issue. Our findings demonstrate that the most common approach adopted in both the normative and biobank-specific documentation is acknowledgment. A co-authorship approach was second and highlighted concerns surrounding the fairness of imposing authorship of the scientific leadership as a condition to access data and biosamples, as well as the alignment with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ criteria such as what is deemed a significant contribution and how to ensure accountability. Based on these findings, we propose a three-prong approach, that may be cumulative, to address the issue of authorship attribution in the context of population biobanks, namely 1) the biobank should be appropriately acknowledged; 2) an invitation for co-authorship should be made based on the spirit of collaboration and provided a substantial contribution has been made; and 3) a citation/referencing option should be available.

Developing Policy for the Healthy Life Trajectories Initiative: Going from National to International

“…We considered various approaches of credit attribution to original investigators in the context of population biobanks and databases, including acknowledgment and coauthorship. 39 Ultimately, we selected the acknowledgment approach identified by Kleiderman et al as the most common approach in the database and biobanking context. 39 Under this approach, authors must acknowledge the database(s) and biobank(s) from which they obtained the data and/or biosamples used to generate the research findings presented in their publication.…”

“… 39 Ultimately, we selected the acknowledgment approach identified by Kleiderman et al as the most common approach in the database and biobanking context. 39 Under this approach, authors must acknowledge the database(s) and biobank(s) from which they obtained the data and/or biosamples used to generate the research findings presented in their publication. 39 Furthermore, researchers responsible for the development of specific data or biospecimen collection tools must be invited to collaborate in the proposed project.…”

“…We decided not to attribute automatic authorship to HeLTI investigators, as it is contrary to the principles of fairness and accountability. 39 Indeed, authors must respect all of the International Committee of Medical Journals Editors authorship guidelines. 40 Therefore, authors must (1) have made substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work, (2) have participated in its drafting or revision, (3) had final approval of the version of the work submitted for publication, and (4) agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.…”

Building Research Support Capacity across Human Health Biobanks during the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…Managers can support their staff by advocating for authorship and/or acknowledgement on biobank-supported research publications, while recognizing that authorship demands can also deter researchers from using biobanks. 48 The creation of authorship identifiers that can be digitally linked to multiple individuals can maximize authorship opportunities for biobanks or biobank networks, 40 and may be more acceptable to research teams. Managers can also support the development of transferable skills in biobank staff in core areas such as communication, financial management and process improvement, which remain in demand across all industries.…”