Poster Q15 - Authorship Unraveled: Redefining BMES Criteria for Collaborative Research

Introduction: The concept of authorship is foundational to academic publishing, but the rules and norms for scientific authorship are neither obvious nor transparent across disciplines. Biomedical engineering often involves highly collaborative projects with diverse contributions, which can strain traditional authorship models focused on distinct roles. The Biomedical Engineering Society (BMES) journals, including Cellular and Molecular Bioengineering, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Cardiovascular Engineering and Technology, and Biomedical Engineering Education, have adopted authorship guidelines largely based on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria. While authorship criteria like those from the ICJME provide general guidance, their adequacy for addressing authorship challenges in modern team-based biomedical engineering research has been questioned[1-3]. Specifically, concerns exist regarding whether these guidelines sufficiently capture the nuances of authorship in complex biomedical engineering studies. This project aims to critically evaluate the BMES journals' authorship guidelines by comparing them to the ICMJE recommendations and other proposed models. By doing so, this work seeks to identify potential gaps and opportunities for enhancing the BMES guidelines to better suit the unique nature of biomedical engineering research. The primary objective is to establish the extent to which the BMES guidelines capture the nuances of authorship in complex biomedical engineering studies and to propose specific improvements to better align the guidelines with the needs of the field.

Materials and

Methods: This comprehensive analysis explored contemporary perspectives on authorship guidelines by focusing on both the ICMJE criteria and the authorship guidelines of BMES journals. Nine papers were selected to examine the nuances surrounding authorship ethics and ICMJE guidelines. The articles were carefully analyzed through an iterative process to identify recurring themes, trends, and proposed solutions regarding authorship ethics and ICMJE guidelines. Initially, the articles were read to gain a general understanding of their content. They were then organized based on whether they posed suggestions for addressing authorship issues. The articles were further reread to identify recurring themes and were compiled into a list. Through this thorough and repeated examination of the material, the researchers became intimately acquainted with the content, enabling them to further identify and refine themes, trends, and proposed solutions discussed in the literature. This qualitative review allowed for a nuanced exploration of complexities inherent in authorship practices and offered valuable insights into the evolving landscape of academic publishing.
Simultaneously, a comparative analysis was conducted between the BMES Journal Guidelines and the ICMJE criteria. Key principles, requirements, and recommendations from each set of guidelines were synthesized, with particular attention to areas of convergence and divergence between the entities. The analysis considered contemporary authorship challenges highlighted in the literature such as accountability, contributorship statements, and handling authorship disputes.
By merging these two approaches, a comprehensive understanding of contemporary authorship practices and guidelines emerged; such understanding informed subsequent phases of research and guided the formulation of theoretical frameworks and research questions.

Results, Conclusions, and Discussions: The comprehensive literature review uncovered key findings while, simultaneously, the comparative analysis of BMES Journal Authorship Guidelines provided additional insights into contemporary authorship practices.
Inadequacy of Traditional Guidelines: Critics argue that current guidelines are unsuitable for modern collaborative research due to their rigidity and inability to accommodate diverse contributions[1,4,5]. While the ICMJE guidelines serve as a foundation for many journals – including three out of the four BMES journals reviewed – none of the articles provide explicit guidance on authorship order; This lack of guidance echoes the sentiment of inadequacy in addressing complex authorship scenarios[6].
Prevalence of Authorship Misconduct: Despite the existence of authorship guidelines, instances of honorary and ghost authorship persist within academia, with their presence highlighting systemic challenges[7-9]. The absence of clear definitions for “significant” contribution in both ICMJE and BMES guidelines contributes to ambiguity and potential misconduct[3].
Proposed Alternative Approaches: Alternative models, such as contributorship statements, have been suggested in both the literature and BMES guidelines to delineate individual contributions[6,8]. However, challenges in implementing and adopting these models persist and underscore the need for comprehensive reforms.
Calls for Increased Transparency and Accountability: Both the literature and BMES guidelines promote contributorship statements for transparency and accountability to prevent misconduct, however, they lack clear definitions of what constitutes a contributable effort[3-6,8,10-15].
Need for Systemic Culture Shifts: Critics advocate for reassessing evaluation criteria and improving research ethics training, which aligns with the literature and BMES guidelines, to promote broader cultural shifts in academia[4,11,13,16].
The findings from the literature review and BMES guidelines analysis highlight persistent challenges in authorship attribution guidelines as scientific research becomes more complex and collaborative. While some journals – including those in the BMES – have explored alternative models, implementation challenges persist due to the lack of specificity in existing guidelines.
Authorship is fundamental for research integrity and knowledge dissemination. Both the literature and analysis of BMES Journal Authorship Guidelines highlight their inadequacy in addressing current challenges. Urgent updates and systemic reforms – guided by a holistic approach involving stakeholders at all levels – are imperative to drive meaningful progress in authorship practices and safeguard research integrity.

Acknowledgements (Optional): The authors were supported by the AFWERX Direct to Phase II SBIR contract number FA864922P0928, Dr's Robert De Lorenzo and Lyle Hood are equity holders in EmergenceMed, LLC that is working to commercialize the technology. The authors would also like to thank Dr. Andrew O. Brightman for his guidance on this project.