ABCD. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cirurgia Digestiva (São Paulo)
Print version ISSN 0102-6720
PETROIANU, Andy. Distribution of authorship in a scientific work. ABCD, arq. bras. cir. dig. [online]. 2012, vol.25, n.1, pp. 60-64. ISSN 0102-6720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-67202012000100014.
INTRODUCTION: To publish became almost compulsory in Medicine. There is no doubt about the importance of publishing research, but the ordering of its authors is not easy. The lack of internationally accepted criteria led to the establishment of several groups or conventions particularized medical and scientific sectors. OBJETIVE: To present numerical method to establish rule of value to people who carried out the research, and whether or not incorporated as authors. METHOD: The proposed score is based on the needs of each step when conducting a scientific work. They were divided into topics in which the main ones were: 1) scientific criteria for authorship; 2) create the idea that originated the work and develop hypotheses; 3) structure the method of work; 4) guiding the work; 5) write the manuscript; 6) coordinate the group that carried out the work; 7) reviewing the literature; 8) suggestions incorporated into the work; 9) to solve fundamental problems of labor; 10) to collect data; 11) presentation at scientific meetings; 12 ) lead the job and raise funds; 13) providing patients or material; 14) to do the routine needs; 15) specific fee to participate; 16) criteria for ranking the authors; 17) honorary author; 18) usurpation of the main authorship, 19) acknowledgments . CONCLUSIONS: It is important to emphasize that, to prevent major conflicts, the group that is willing to conduct a scientific work should establish at the outset, as objectively as possible, the criteria to be adopted for distribution of authorship. The subjective criteria here proposed avoid interference and prevent conflicts of interest.
Keywords : Research; Authorship; Authorship and co-authorship in scientific publications.