Development of a scoring system for Author placement in Manuscript writing

Development of a scoring system for Author placement in Manuscript writing | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Short Report Development of a scoring system for Author placement in Manuscript writing Onyinye,. Uchenna Anyanwu, Chinonyelum,. Thecla Ezeonu, Obumneme,. Beniah Ezeanosike, and 1 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4944632/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background and objectives :The author placement in a manuscript should reasonably correspond to their contribution to the work. Despite its importance, author placement had been done arbitrarily without objectivity. This study aims to study the importance, and contributions of an author in a collaborative research based on their placement as well as to develop a scoring system for authorship order. Hopefully this would provide a structured method of proposing authorship order in a scientific manuscript. Methods :A sequential mixed qualitative and quantitative method was used with consecutive sampling of 100participants. Key informant interviews were conducted on importance, credibility and parts of a research/manuscript writing process. A 14-item step for generation of a manuscript was developed which was given to researchers to score 1-5 based on importance. Manual analysis was used for qualitative part, while quantitative data analysis was done with IBM SPSS-22. The mean + SD Score of each item was obtained and percentage agreement calculated. Results: There was a uniform list of various parts to develop a manuscript from start to publishing. Conceptualization of study, preparation of manuscript, received scores 5 and 4.4 while financial contribution, analysis of results, proof reading/editing of manuscript were scored 1 respectively.All participants scored same for conceptualization(score 5) and financial contribution(score1). Conclusion :Conceptualization of study and preparation of manuscripts had the largest scores for placements of authors, while financial contribution; proof reading/editing of manuscripts and data analysis had the least scores. Proper placement for authors in manuscript writing using this guide is thereby recommended. author manuscript placement scoring system writing Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Introduction Publishing in a scientific journal or any peer-reviewed publication, makes research visible to the greater public. 1 It brings discoveries and insights into the eyes of the main experts around the world. 2 This, in turn, builds and author’s reputation as a researcher. Having a good list of published papers may also help achieve some career goals, such as getting a degree, a promotion or, as a scientist, getting funding to continue with research. The number of first-author papers may also be looked upon as a positive metric and measure for growth and relevance. 3 , 4 Personal gains associated with increasing a researcher’s number of publication could result in publication pressure and so may jeopardize the integrity by which the paper is authored, paving way for unethical practices such as gift and ghost authorship. 5 , 6 Most research papers are based on teamwork and collaboration usually involving multiple authors. In the production of a scholarly paper, researchers who participate in its production must assign a first author, corresponding author and a correct order ofauthor placement. This is often a challenging decision and sometimes this generates conflict as the author position most often indicate status. 7 Authors are often placed based on mutual agreement or according to the general understanding of the role and significance of the positions and it usually indicates the amount of contribution each author has made to the manuscript. The first author is viewed to have contributed the most. 7 The order of authors should reasonably correspond to how the authors contributed to the work. It also implies specific credit and responsibilities that go with being in these positions. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) recommend four minimum criteria, all of which must be met to qualify for authorship. First, an author must have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data. Second, drafting or critically revising the work. Third, final approval of the version to be published and finally, being accountable for all aspects of the work. 8 Regarding the order of authors, ICMJE suggests that it should be decided by the research team members or the institution where the research was conducted. 8 However, while the minimum requirements for authorship are generally agreed upon, the credit/responsibility given to a specific author list isn’t so clear. The position on the list can determine the author’s expected duties and show the readers how the author contributed to the work. Previous authors have attempted to develop scoring systems the earliest of which was developed with items scoring time spent in the contribution. 9 Peer judgement was also suggested where each author had to rank the contribution of a colleague to determine placement. 10 The lack of objectivity that these methods have may bring some sort of authorship placement bias. It is on this premise that the authors set out to take an opinion pool of researches to know scores that may be attributed to each part of the process to generate a scientific paper. This scoring system hopefully will bring objectivity and a structured method of proposing authorship order subsequently in a scientific manuscript. This study aims to study the importance, credibility and contributions of an author in a collaborative research based on their placement as well as to develop and validate a scoring system for authorship order. This scoring system will hopefully help in providing a structured method of proposing authorship order in a scientific manuscript. Materials and Methods Setting Current study was conducted between January and September 2023 by a group of researchers from Alex Ekwueme Federal University (AEFUNNAI and Ebonyi State University (EBSU) Abakaliki, Ebonyi State. The institutions have colleges of medicine where undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainings occur. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the research and ethics committee of Alex Ekwueme Federal University Teaching Hospital(AEFUTHA) Abakaliki Ebonyi state. Study design Sequential Mixed Qualitative Quantitative Method Key informant interviews were was done with 10 selected professors of the two universities using an interview guide (Appendix 1), developed to cover domains such as perceived importance of author placement in a manuscript, how to assess credibility and contribution of an author based on their placement in a manuscript, how influential placement of authors in a manuscript is with regards to academic recognition and career progression, measures their institution has in place to ensure fair author placement practices in collaborative research projects and identify various components of manuscriptwriting. The results of qualitative analysis were summarized in a presentation to the research team members and three brainstorming sessions were done where we harmonized the results from the key informant interview to arrive at a consensus which was used to develop a questionnaire that was used as the tool for quantitative data collection. A cross sectional survey was done among faculty board members, who are lecturers in various medical subspecialties using the 14-item questionnaire developed. Each item was ranked on a 5-point Likertscale based on their opinion of the relevance and importance of the items (1 being the least score and 5 being the highest). Participants Participants for the Key informant interview (KII) wereProfessors that have been involved in research, teaching research methods and/ or supervision of research projects,thesis and dissertations of younger colleagues. They contributed their opinion about components of the process for generating a manuscript. The quantitative part had 100 participants who had conducted and published a scientific paper. The responses were analyzed quantitatively, and mean ± standard deviation for each item was calculated. Sample size We used the recommendation for validation and factor analysis studies, that there should be 5–10 participants selected for each item. Therefore our 14-item required a minimum sample size of 70.A convenient sample of 100 participants was recruited to participate. Data Collection A proforma of 5 questions was used for the key informant interview of 10 professors using a recorder which was then transcribed. A hardcopy questionnaire was used for quantitative data collection. Section A obtained the sociodemographic profile of the participants such as age, gender and how many years they had been involved in research. There were questions that asked how many papers they had published. Section B was basically the 14-items obtained for ranking. All participants were approached at their workplace, and a hard copy of the questionnaire was given for data collection. Statistical analysis Responses from the KII interviews were manually analysed. Quantitative data were entered into IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 for analysis. The mean ± SD Score of each item was obtained and percentage agreement calculated for each item. RESULTS The mean years of practice of participants of the key informant interview were 20years. They were 7Males and 3females. All participants perceived that author placement is important in a manuscript. All participants bemoaned the fact that there was no objectivity in placement of authors after research nor in assessing the contributions of authors to a manuscript. There was a uniform list of various parts to develop a manuscript from start to publishing. Conceptualization and writing of the methodology were agreed by all key informants to be the most important criteria for author placement. Financial contribution was the least important in assigning authorship in a manuscript. All key informants agreed that author position was influential in determining academic recognition, of which the first author had the most score. Seven participants agreed that the last author is usually the most senior participants who played advisory role in the research, including conceptualization and determining the methods of the research. All key informants agreed that author position should be decided upon before the study is commenced, and reassessed judging participation after the study is done. There were currently no guidelines or measures in place in the university to ensure fair author placement practices in collaborative projects and conflicts and disputes generated are usually addressed by the authors themselves. Developing a scoring system for author placement in manuscripts was most welcome by all respondents as it would give a reproducible and reliable criterion for placement rather than arbitrary placement as has always been done. Quantitative Mean age of the participants was 46.3 ± 6.9(32-64years) and mean years of practice as a researcher was 16.0 ± 5.2(6-28years), males were 41% and females were 59%(Fig. 1 ). All had been involved in journal publication. Respondents Of the 100 respondents, 34% had published > 30times while 27% had published 11-20times. This is shown in Fig. 2 Among participants, 44% had been first author 1-10times (Fig. 3 )while 54% had been corresponding author1-10 times(Fig. 3 )2% of participants had never been corresponding author (Fig. 4 ) The mean ± SD Score and range score of each item are represented in the Table. Conceptualization of study received the highest score of 5 while financial contribution received the lowest score of 1. The table also shows the scores and their percentage agreement calculated for each item. All participants scored same for conceptualization (score 5) and financial contribution to the study(score1). The item which had the greatest variation was preparation of manuscript for publication, as 64%scored it 5 and another 27% scored it 4 while 9% gave it a score 1. DISCUSSION The mean age of researchers (46.3 ± 6.9) and their mean duration in research (16.0 ± 5.2) observed in this study, suggested that participants had experience in manuscript writing and journal publication. This was corroborated by the finding that a third of participants had published more than 30 peer-reviewed articles, more than a half and 44% had been corresponding authors and first authors respectively in 1–10 peer-reviewed manuscripts. Although more than half of the participants were found to be females, there were no evidences that showed that women were more into publication compared to their male counterparts. Authorship in a peer-reviewed publication enhances one’s scientific and scholarly achievement, improves opportunities for academic funding and promotion as career rewards are based on publication counting. Hence, authors’ placement especially lead authorship in a published manuscript is a reflection of their academic relevance. 3 , 4 This was corroborated by all the key informants, who agreed that author’s position was influential in determining academic recognition, of which the first author had the most score. Although everyone who made substantial intellectual contributions to the research could be an author, the listing of the authors sometimes causes misunderstanding especially when the placement of authorship was not communicated before the manuscript writing. 11 The order of authorship should be a collective decision of the authors in the research group. 2 This study observed that all of the participants gave the highest score of relevance to conceptualization of study, hence should be given priority in author placement in a manuscript. This may be attributed to the fact that the author that conceived the research topic, possibly designed the study, and has an in-depth understanding of the study. Hence, usually becomes the lead author. He/she usually assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript, and also often serves as the managerial and corresponding author. 12 Every manuscript writing that would eventually become published in a peer-reviewed journal has phases, which starts with conceptualization and design of the research, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data. 8 While some authors are not particular about sequence of authorships, Riesenberg and Lundberg 13 suggested that sequence of authors in manuscript should be based on the relative overall contributions to the manuscript. Majority (64.0%) of the participants gave preparation of manuscript for publication, the highest score, suggesting that it should also be given priority in author placement in a manuscript. In preparation of manuscript, the author harnesses all the inputs from other authors, so as to comply with the chosen journal for publication. He/she takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, ensuring that all the data is complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted and this is arguably an enormous responsibility. Some authors, 13 opined that the author that took the lead in manuscript writing should be placed first. This they attributed to the more intellectually demanding work involved in manuscript preparation compared to other aspect of the research. However, there are instances where a supervisor is training a naïve student in manuscript writing, may have perceived the initial idea for the study or engaged in manuscript preparation and served as correspondence to the manuscript, but chooses to be placed as the last author while the student that did data collection and analysis or engaged in other aspect of the research is made the first author. 14 Everything should be done in agreement within members of team. On the hand, a senior member of the team must fulfill the four criteria for authorship before he/she is placed as the last author to avoid gift or guest authorship done out of loyalty. Other aspect of manuscript writing such as writing of abstract/summary, data analysis, proof reading/ editing of manuscript and financial contribution scored the least. This may also be a reflection of reduced intellectual demands in these aspects of research. It is a common policy that the authors in between the first and last are ranked in order of the magnitude of their input into the paper. 11 However, there is no consensus on these widely used positions. On some papers, the last author may be the person who contributed the least in intellectual terms rather than the most. 14 In conclusion, this study found that conceptualization of study and preparation of manuscripts had the largest scores for placements of authors, while financial contribution, proof reading/editing of manuscripts and data analysis had the least scores. Proper placement for authors in manuscript writing using this guide is thereby recommended. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate - 'Not applicable' Consent for publication - 'Not applicable' Availability of data and materials - The dataset for the study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Competing interests - The authors declare that they have no competing interests Funding - No External support. self-funded by Authors Authors' contributions - Design: OUA, CTE,OBE Manuscript Script Writing for first draft: OUA and MCO figures and Tables: OUA Review of drafts and recommendations for final drafts: All authors Endorsement for the final version: All authors Acknowledgements- Authors are thankful to all the scholars who spent time in participation. References COPE Discussion Document: Authorship. (2014). Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3 Wager. 2009 Albert, T., & Wager, E. (2009). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. Committee on Publication Ethics. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1 McNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, Hanson B, Howard B, Jamieson KH, Kiermer V, Marcus E, Pope BK, Schekman R, Swaminathan S, Stang PJ, Verma IM. (2018). Transparency in authors’ contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557–2560. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115 Nazish Masud E, Masuadi A, Moukaddem A, Omair M, Mohamud MA, Dubayee A, Althubaiti M, KhabtiAlnamshan. Manal Bawazeer, Mohammed I. AlJasser. Development and Validation of Authorship Order Score (AOS) for Scientific Publication. Health Professions Education;6, Issue 3,2020,Pages 434–443, ISSN 2452–3011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.04.006 Teixeira SJ, Dobranszki J. Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1457–72. B. Macfarlane.The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Stud High Educ, 42 (7) (2017), pp. 1194–210. Grobbee DE, Allpress R. On scientific authorship: proliferation. Probl prospects Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(8):790–1. International Committee of Medical Journal Recommendations for the Conduct. Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (Dec 2018) [cited 2023 June 9]. http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ Winston RB. A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. J Counsel Dev. 1985;63(8):515–8. Bhopal RS, Rankin JM, McColl E, Stacy R, Pearson PH, Kaner EF, et al. Authorship. Team approach to assigning authorship order is recommended. BMJ. 1997;314(7086):1046–7. Savitz DA. What can we infer from author order in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:401–3. Tarkang EE, Kweku M, Zotor FB. Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article. J Public Health Afr. 2017;8(1):723. 10.4081/jphia.2017 . Riesenberg D, Lundberg GD. The order of authorship: who’s on first? JAMA. 1990;264:1857. Bhattacharya S. Authorship issue explained. Indian J Plast Surg. 2010;43(2):233–4. 10.4103/0970-0358.73482 . Table TABLE: Showing the 14-item list of various parts to develop a manuscript from start to publishing and participants scoring of each item. Variable Mean SD Range Modal score Percentage agreement and scores Conceptualization Of Study 5 .00 5 Score 5=100% Writing Introduction/Background From A Literature Review 3.4 .49 3-4 3 Score 3=64% Score 4=36% Outlining and writing Methodology 3.4 .49 3-4 3 Score 3= 64% Score 4=36% Developing The Study Tools 3.0 .97 2-5 3 Score 2=36% Score 3=37% Score 4 18% Generate Data(data collection) 2.4 .65 2-4 2 Score 2=73% Score3=18% Score 4=9% Handle The Data By Entering Into Excel/Spss/Stata 2.0 .43 1-3 2 Score 1=9% Score 2=82% Score3=9% Statistical Analysis 1.5 .90 1-3 1 Score 1= 73% Score 3=27% Analyze The Results 1.3 .63 1-3 1 Score 1=82% Score 2=9% Score 3=9% Writing the Discussion 3.2 .58 2-4 3 Score 2=9% Score 3=63.6% Score 4=27% Writing Abstract/Summary 1.1 .29 1-2 1 Score 1=91% Score 2=9% Preparation Of Manuscript For Publication 4.4 1.17 1-5 5 Score 1=9% Score 4=27% Score 5=64% Communicating With The Journal When Paper Is Under Review 3.6 .80 2-5 3 Score 3=46% Score 4=36% Score 5=18% Proofreading//Editing Of Manuscripts 1.5 .51 1-2 1 Score 1=55% Score 2=45% Financial Contribution/Cost 1.0 .69 1-1 1 Score 1=100% Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4944632","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Short Report","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":353119849,"identity":"814d6e8f-188e-48e7-8017-37aa726e7999","order_by":0,"name":"Onyinye,. Uchenna Anyanwu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Alex Ekwueme Federal University Taching Hospital Abakaliki, Ebonyi State","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":".","middleName":"Uchenna Anyanwu","lastName":"Onyinye","suffix":""},{"id":353119851,"identity":"4f063407-3920-4dab-b4ac-13e4deeb86a2","order_by":1,"name":"Chinonyelum,. Thecla Ezeonu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Alex Ekwueme Federal University Taching Hospital Abakaliki, Ebonyi State","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":".","middleName":"Thecla Ezeonu","lastName":"Chinonyelum","suffix":""},{"id":353119853,"identity":"df977e97-693d-4c3e-a0f9-1cedc0ca4d1a","order_by":2,"name":"Obumneme,. Beniah Ezeanosike","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Alex Ekwueme Federal University Taching Hospital Abakaliki, Ebonyi State","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":".","middleName":"Beniah Ezeanosike","lastName":"Obumneme","suffix":""},{"id":353119855,"identity":"4f115233-d8a6-427a-a00d-2770b9e969f6","order_by":3,"name":"Maria-Lauretta,. Chito Orji","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Alex Ekwueme Federal University Taching Hospital Abakaliki, Ebonyi State","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":".","middleName":"Chito Orji","lastName":"Maria-Lauretta","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-08-20 11:30:08","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4944632/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4944632/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":66739634,"identity":"5e1ff20e-4a0b-47fc-94cd-1a87e8937e21","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 05:34:10","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":10328,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eGender of participants\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4944632/v1/3630615708b7a63558e9ee86.png"},{"id":66739632,"identity":"fe6833df-10d3-4039-8cef-1287720c5308","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 05:34:10","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14719,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ehow many publications have they made?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e*1.00=1-10;2.00=11-20;3.00=21-30;4.00=\u0026gt;30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4944632/v1/992f94845e6e9d4ffb721a53.png"},{"id":66739635,"identity":"cec49369-dfa9-4544-83e2-54659c862cfe","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 05:34:10","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14083,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ehow many publications were you first author?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cstrong\u003e1.00=1-10;2.00=11-20;3.00=21-30;4.00=\u0026gt;30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4944632/v1/04dcbc90617ab81af669712a.png"},{"id":66741892,"identity":"3a398f80-6c9e-474b-8b26-b6a8eb1284eb","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 05:58:10","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":15754,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003ehow many publication were they corresponding author?\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cstrong\u003e1.00=1-10;2.00=11-20;3.00=21-30;4.00=\u0026gt;30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4944632/v1/df71cb24311b9d09cd81c3ac.png"},{"id":66742450,"identity":"79bd396c-0fa9-4bc0-8f8e-e42b2b96b0cc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-10-16 06:06:10","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":506840,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4944632/v1/7d854939-b960-47e8-889b-65da09c9f733.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development of a scoring system for Author placement in Manuscript writing","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003ePublishing in a scientific journal or any peer-reviewed publication, makes research visible to the greater public.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e It brings discoveries and insights into the eyes of the main experts around the world.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e This, in turn, builds and author\u0026rsquo;s reputation as a researcher. Having a good list of published papers may also help achieve some career goals, such as getting a degree, a promotion or, as a scientist, getting funding to continue with research. The number of first-author papers may also be looked upon as a positive metric and measure for growth and relevance.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003ePersonal gains associated with increasing a researcher\u0026rsquo;s number of publication could result in publication pressure and so may jeopardize the integrity by which the paper is authored, paving way for unethical practices such as gift and ghost authorship.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Most research papers are based on teamwork and collaboration usually involving multiple authors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e In the production of a scholarly paper, researchers who participate in its production must assign a first author, corresponding author and a correct order ofauthor placement. This is often a challenging decision and sometimes this generates conflict as the author position most often indicate status.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Authors are often placed based on mutual agreement or according to the general understanding of the role and significance of the positions and it usually indicates the amount of contribution each author has made to the manuscript. The first author is viewed to have contributed the most.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe order of authors should reasonably correspond to how the authors contributed to the work. It also implies specific credit and responsibilities that go with being in these positions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) recommend four minimum criteria, all of which must be met to qualify for authorship. First, an author must have made a substantial contribution to the conception and design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of data. Second, drafting or critically revising the work. Third, final approval of the version to be published and finally, being accountable for all aspects of the work.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003eRegarding the order of authors, ICMJE suggests that it should be decided by the research team members or the institution where the research was conducted.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003eHowever, while the minimum requirements for authorship are generally agreed upon, the credit/responsibility given to a specific author list isn\u0026rsquo;t so clear. The position on the list can determine the author\u0026rsquo;s expected duties and show the readers how the author contributed to the work.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePrevious authors have attempted to develop scoring systems the earliest of which was developed with items scoring time spent in the contribution.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003ePeer judgement was also suggested where each author had to rank the contribution of a colleague to determine placement.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e10\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e The lack of objectivity that these methods have may bring some sort of authorship placement bias. It is on this premise that the authors set out to take an opinion pool of researches to know scores that may be attributed to each part of the process to generate a scientific paper. This scoring system hopefully will bring objectivity and a structured method of proposing authorship order subsequently in a scientific manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study aims to study the importance, credibility and contributions of an author in a collaborative research based on their placement as well as to develop and validate a scoring system for authorship order. This scoring system will hopefully help in providing a structured method of proposing authorship order in a scientific manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSetting\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCurrent study was conducted between January and September 2023 by a group of researchers from Alex Ekwueme Federal University (AEFUNNAI and Ebonyi State University (EBSU) Abakaliki, Ebonyi State. The institutions have colleges of medicine where undergraduate and postgraduate medical trainings occur. Ethical approval for this study was granted by the research and ethics committee of Alex Ekwueme Federal University Teaching Hospital(AEFUTHA) Abakaliki Ebonyi state.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSequential Mixed Qualitative Quantitative Method\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKey informant interviews were was done with 10 selected professors of the two universities using an interview guide (Appendix 1), developed to cover domains such as perceived importance of author placement in a manuscript, how to assess credibility and contribution of an author based on their placement in a manuscript, how influential placement of authors in a manuscript is with regards to academic recognition and career progression, measures their institution has in place to ensure fair author placement practices in collaborative research projects and identify various components of manuscriptwriting. The results of qualitative analysis were summarized in a presentation to the research team members and three brainstorming sessions were done where we harmonized the results from the key informant interview to arrive at a consensus which was used to develop a questionnaire that was used as the tool for quantitative data collection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eA cross sectional survey was done among faculty board members, who are lecturers in various medical subspecialties using the 14-item questionnaire developed. Each item was ranked on a 5-point Likertscale based on their opinion of the relevance and importance of the items (1 being the least score and 5 being the highest).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eParticipants for the Key informant interview (KII) wereProfessors that have been involved in research, teaching research methods and/ or supervision of research projects,thesis and dissertations of younger colleagues. They contributed their opinion about components of the process for generating a manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe quantitative part had 100 participants who had conducted and published a scientific paper.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe responses were analyzed quantitatively, and mean\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;standard deviation for each item was calculated.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSample size\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe used the recommendation for validation and factor analysis studies, that there should be 5\u0026ndash;10 participants selected for each item. Therefore our 14-item required a minimum sample size of 70.A convenient sample of 100 participants was recruited to participate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eData Collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA proforma of 5 questions was used for the key informant interview of 10 professors using a recorder which was then transcribed. A hardcopy questionnaire was used for quantitative data collection. Section A obtained the sociodemographic profile of the participants such as age, gender and how many years they had been involved in research. There were questions that asked how many papers they had published. Section B was basically the 14-items obtained for ranking. All participants were approached at their workplace, and a hard copy of the questionnaire was given for data collection.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eResponses from the KII interviews were manually analysed. Quantitative data were entered into IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 for analysis. The mean\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e\u0026thinsp;SD Score of each item was obtained and percentage agreement calculated for each item.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e The mean years of practice of participants of the key informant interview were 20years. They were 7Males and 3females. All participants perceived that author placement is important in a manuscript. All participants bemoaned the fact that there was no objectivity in placement of authors after research nor in assessing the contributions of authors to a manuscript. There was a uniform list of various parts to develop a manuscript from start to publishing.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptualization and writing of the methodology were agreed by all key informants to be the most important criteria for author placement. Financial contribution was the least important in assigning authorship in a manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll key informants agreed that author position was influential in determining academic recognition, of which the first author had the most score. Seven participants agreed that the last author is usually the most senior participants who played advisory role in the research, including conceptualization and determining the methods of the research.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll key informants agreed that author position should be decided upon before the study is commenced, and reassessed judging participation after the study is done. There were currently no guidelines or measures in place in the university to ensure fair author placement practices in collaborative projects and conflicts and disputes generated are usually addressed by the authors themselves. Developing a scoring system for author placement in manuscripts was most welcome by all respondents as it would give a reproducible and reliable criterion for placement rather than arbitrary placement as has always been done.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eQuantitative\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMean age of the participants was 46.3\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e\u0026thinsp;6.9(32-64years) and mean years of practice as a researcher was 16.0\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e\u0026thinsp;5.2(6-28years), males were 41% and females were 59%(Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e). All had been involved in journal publication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRespondents\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOf the 100 respondents, 34% had published\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;30times while 27% had published 11-20times. This is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAmong participants, 44% had been first author 1-10times (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)while 54% had been corresponding author1-10 times(Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e)2% of participants had never been corresponding author (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe mean\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e\u0026thinsp;SD Score and range score of each item are represented in the Table. Conceptualization of study received the highest score of 5 while financial contribution received the lowest score of 1. The table also shows the scores and their percentage agreement calculated for each item. All participants scored same for conceptualization (score 5) and financial contribution to the study(score1). The item which had the greatest variation was preparation of manuscript for publication, as 64%scored it 5 and another 27% scored it 4 while 9% gave it a score 1.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"DISCUSSION","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe mean age of researchers (46.3\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e\u0026thinsp;6.9) and their mean duration in research (16.0\u0026thinsp;\u003cspan type=\"Underline\" class=\"Underline\" name=\"Emphasis\"\u003e\u0026plusmn;\u003c/span\u003e\u0026thinsp;5.2) observed in this study, suggested that participants had experience in manuscript writing and journal publication. This was corroborated by the finding that a third of participants had published more than 30 peer-reviewed articles, more than a half and 44% had been corresponding authors and first authors respectively in 1\u0026ndash;10 peer-reviewed manuscripts. Although more than half of the participants were found to be females, there were no evidences that showed that women were more into publication compared to their male counterparts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAuthorship in a peer-reviewed publication enhances one\u0026rsquo;s scientific and scholarly achievement, improves opportunities for academic funding and promotion as career rewards are based on publication counting. Hence, authors\u0026rsquo; placement especially lead authorship in a published manuscript is a reflection of their academic relevance.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e,\u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003eThis was corroborated by all the key informants, who agreed that author\u0026rsquo;s position was influential in determining academic recognition, of which the first author had the most score. Although everyone who made substantial intellectual contributions to the research could be an author, the listing of the authors sometimes causes misunderstanding especially when the placement of authorship was not communicated before the manuscript writing.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003eThe order of authorship should be a collective decision of the authors in the research group.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study observed that all of the participants gave the highest score of relevance to conceptualization of study, hence should be given priority in author placement in a manuscript. This may be attributed to the fact that the author that conceived the research topic, possibly designed the study, and has an in-depth understanding of the study. Hence, usually becomes the lead author. He/she usually assumes overall responsibility for the manuscript, and also often serves as the managerial and corresponding author.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e12\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eEvery manuscript writing that would eventually become published in a peer-reviewed journal has phases, which starts with conceptualization and design of the research, acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003eWhile some authors are not particular about sequence of authorships, Riesenberg and Lundberg\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e suggested that sequence of authors in manuscript should be based on the relative overall contributions to the manuscript. Majority (64.0%) of the participants gave preparation of manuscript for publication, the highest score, suggesting that it should also be given priority in author placement in a manuscript. In preparation of manuscript, the author harnesses all the inputs from other authors, so as to comply with the chosen journal for publication. He/she takes responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, ensuring that all the data is complete, accurate, and reasonably interpreted and this is arguably an enormous responsibility. Some authors,\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e13\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e opined that the author that took the lead in manuscript writing should be placed first. This they attributed to the more intellectually demanding work involved in manuscript preparation compared to other aspect of the research. However, there are instances where a supervisor is training a na\u0026iuml;ve student in manuscript writing, may have perceived the initial idea for the study or engaged in manuscript preparation and served as correspondence to the manuscript, but chooses to be placed as the last author while the student that did data collection and analysis or engaged in other aspect of the research is made the first author.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e Everything should be done in agreement within members of team. On the hand, a senior member of the team must fulfill the four criteria for authorship before he/she is placed as the last author to avoid gift or guest authorship done out of loyalty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOther aspect of manuscript writing such as writing of abstract/summary, data analysis, proof reading/ editing of manuscript and financial contribution scored the least. This may also be a reflection of reduced intellectual demands in these aspects of research. It is a common policy that the authors in between the first and last are ranked in order of the magnitude of their input into the paper.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e11\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e However, there is no consensus on these widely used positions. On some papers, the last author may be the person who contributed the least in intellectual terms rather than the most.\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn conclusion, this study found that conceptualization of study and preparation of manuscripts had the largest scores for placements of authors, while financial contribution, proof reading/editing of manuscripts and data analysis had the least scores. Proper placement for authors in manuscript writing using this guide is thereby recommended.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; -\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026apos;Not applicable\u0026apos;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/strong\u003e - \u0026nbsp;\u0026apos;Not applicable\u0026apos;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/strong\u003e - The dataset for the study can be obtained from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e - The authors declare that they have no competing interests\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e - \u0026nbsp;No External support. self-funded by Authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthors\u0026apos; contributions\u003c/strong\u003e-\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDesign: OUA, CTE,OBE\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eManuscript Script Writing for first draft: OUA and MCO\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003efigures and Tables: OUA\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eReview of drafts and recommendations for final drafts: All authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEndorsement for the final version: All authors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcknowledgements- Authors are thankful to all the scholars who spent time in participation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCOPE Discussion Document: Authorship. (2014). Committee on Publication Ethics. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.3.3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24318/cope.2019.3.3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWager. 2009 Albert, T., \u0026amp; Wager, E. (2009). How to handle authorship disputes: A guide for new researchers. Committee on Publication Ethics. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2018.1.1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.24318/cope.2018.1.1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcNutt MK, Bradford M, Drazen JM, Hanson B, Howard B, Jamieson KH, Kiermer V, Marcus E, Pope BK, Schekman R, Swaminathan S, Stang PJ, Verma IM. (2018). Transparency in authors\u0026rsquo; contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2557\u0026ndash;2560. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1715374115\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1073/pnas.1715374115\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNazish Masud E, Masuadi A, Moukaddem A, Omair M, Mohamud MA, Dubayee A, Althubaiti M, KhabtiAlnamshan. Manal Bawazeer, Mohammed I. AlJasser. Development and Validation of Authorship Order Score (AOS) for Scientific Publication. Health Professions Education;6, Issue 3,2020,Pages 434\u0026ndash;443, ISSN 2452\u0026ndash;3011, \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hpe.2020.04.006\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hpe.2020.04.006\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTeixeira SJ, Dobranszki J. Multiple authorship in scientific manuscripts: ethical challenges, ghost and guest/gift authorship, and the cultural/disciplinary perspective. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016;22(5):1457\u0026ndash;72.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eB. Macfarlane.The ethics of multiple authorship: power, performativity and the gift economy. Stud High Educ, 42 (7) (2017), pp. 1194\u0026ndash;210.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGrobbee DE, Allpress R. On scientific authorship: proliferation. Probl prospects Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016;23(8):790\u0026ndash;1.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Committee of Medical Journal Recommendations for the Conduct. Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals (Dec 2018) [cited 2023 June 9]. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttp://www.icmje.org/recommendations/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWinston RB. A suggested procedure for determining order of authorship in research publications. J Counsel Dev. 1985;63(8):515\u0026ndash;8.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhopal RS, Rankin JM, McColl E, Stacy R, Pearson PH, Kaner EF, et al. Authorship. Team approach to assigning authorship order is recommended. BMJ. 1997;314(7086):1046\u0026ndash;7.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSavitz DA. What can we infer from author order in epidemiology? Am J Epidemiol. 1999;149:401\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTarkang EE, Kweku M, Zotor FB. Publication Practices and Responsible Authorship: A Review Article. J Public Health Afr. 2017;8(1):723. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4081/jphia.2017\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4081/jphia.2017\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRiesenberg D, Lundberg GD. The order of authorship: who\u0026rsquo;s on first? JAMA. 1990;264:1857.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBhattacharya S. Authorship issue explained. Indian J Plast Surg. 2010;43(2):233\u0026ndash;4. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.4103/0970-0358.73482\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4103/0970-0358.73482\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Table","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTABLE: Showing the 14-item list of various parts to develop a manuscript from start to publishing and participants scoring of each item.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"708\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariable\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSD\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRange\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModal score\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePercentage agreement and scores\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConceptualization Of Study\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 5=100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWriting Introduction/Background From A Literature Review\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3=64%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4=36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOutlining and writing Methodology\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3= 64%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4=36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDeveloping The Study Tools\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3=37%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4 18%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGenerate Data(data collection)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=73%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore3=18%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHandle The Data By Entering Into Excel/Spss/Stata\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.43\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=82%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore3=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStatistical Analysis\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1= 73%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3=27%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAnalyze The Results\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.63\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1=82%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWriting the Discussion\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3=63.6%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4=27%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWriting Abstract/Summary\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.29\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1=91%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePreparation Of Manuscript For Publication\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1=9%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4=27%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 5=64%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunicating With The Journal When Paper Is Under Review\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2-5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 3=46%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 4=36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 5=18%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eProofreading//Editing Of Manuscripts\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1=55%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 2=45%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"39.83050847457627%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFinancial Contribution/Cost\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"9.03954802259887%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"7.062146892655368%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1-1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"10.169491525423728%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd width=\"23.728813559322035%\" valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eScore 1=100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"author, manuscript, placement, scoring, system, writing","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4944632/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4944632/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBackground and objectives\u003c/strong\u003e:The author placement in a manuscript should reasonably correspond to their contribution to the work. Despite its importance, author placement had been done arbitrarily without objectivity. This study aims to study the importance, and contributions of an author in a collaborative research based on their placement as well as to develop a scoring system for authorship order. Hopefully this would provide a structured method of proposing authorship order in a scientific manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMethods\u003c/strong\u003e:A sequential mixed qualitative and quantitative method was used with consecutive sampling of 100participants. Key informant interviews were conducted on importance, credibility and parts of a research/manuscript writing process. A 14-item step for generation of a manuscript was developed which was given to researchers to score 1-5 based on importance. Manual analysis was used for qualitative part, while quantitative data analysis was done with IBM SPSS-22. The mean\u003cu\u003e+\u003c/u\u003e SD Score of each item was obtained and percentage agreement calculated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eResults:\u003c/strong\u003eThere was a uniform list of various parts to develop a manuscript from start to publishing. Conceptualization of study, preparation of manuscript, received scores 5 and 4.4 while financial contribution, analysis of results, proof reading/editing of manuscript were scored 1 respectively.All participants scored same for conceptualization(score 5) and financial contribution(score1).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConclusion\u003c/strong\u003e:Conceptualization of study and preparation of manuscripts had the largest scores for placements of authors, while financial contribution; proof reading/editing of manuscripts and data analysis had the least scores. Proper placement for authors in manuscript writing using this guide is thereby recommended.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development of a scoring system for Author placement in Manuscript writing","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-10-16 05:34:05","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4944632/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"1b9f77fe-304e-4207-af82-81fbc2cb05d8","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 16th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-10-16T05:34:07+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-10-16 05:34:05","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4944632","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4944632","identity":"rs-4944632","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"qtupq5eGEP_6zYnWcrvyt","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}