Indian Journal of Cancer
Home  ICS  Feedback Subscribe Top cited articles Login 
Users Online :1643
Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Navigate here
  Search
 
  Next article
  Previous article 
  Table of Contents
  
Resource links
   Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
   Article in PDF (98 KB)
   Citation Manager
   Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
   References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2079    
    Printed80    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded258    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal

 

LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2009  |  Volume : 46  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 254-255
 

Authorship criteria and the role of reviewers and the editor


Department of Pathology, Columbia Asia Referral Hospital, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore - 560055, India

Date of Web Publication25-Jun-2009

Correspondence Address:
S A Pai
Department of Pathology, Columbia Asia Referral Hospital, Malleshwaram West, Bangalore - 560055
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0019-509X.52971

Rights and Permissions



How to cite this article:
Pai S A. Authorship criteria and the role of reviewers and the editor. Indian J Cancer 2009;46:254-5

How to cite this URL:
Pai S A. Authorship criteria and the role of reviewers and the editor. Indian J Cancer [serial online] 2009 [cited 2020 Jul 2];46:254-5. Available from: http://www.indianjcancer.com/text.asp?2009/46/3/254/52971


Sir

I read with interest and some surprise, the articles "Leiomyoma of the nasal septum" by Singh et al. [1] and "Ductal adenocarcinoma of ventral surface of the tongue": an unusual presentation by Halli et al. [2] What I find puzzling is that both articles deal with an unusual pathological lesion, that is, a neoplasm at an uncommon site. In both cases, the role of the pathologist was crucial to the diagnosis. Indeed, the entire discussion in both articles is restricted to pathology, yet, I can see no pathologist as a coauthor in the article, nor is there any acknowledgement made to the pathologist. I believe that an article that is almost entirely based on morphology should have the pathologist as the lead or corresponding author - or at the very least, as one of the authors / contributors.

In contrast, another article in the same issue, which also deals with an unusual pathological condition - adenocarcinoma in the small intestine - is justifiably written by surgeons only. [3] In this article, the neoplasm was detected by the surgical team on the operating table. The discussion in the article is centered on patient management; pathology plays a small role.

The cases above raise the question of what contribution an author should make, to justify inclusion as an author or contributor. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors ( http://www.icmje.org, accessed 4 March, 2009) states that an "author" [is] generally considered to be someone who has made substantive intellectual contributions to the published study. Some journals, now request and publish information about the contributions of each person named as having participated in a submitted study, at least for original research. The World Association for Medical Editors ( http://www.wame.org/resources/ethics-resources/publication-ethics-policies-for-medical-journals / accessed 4 March, 2009), states that "authorship implies a significant intellectual contribution to the work, some role in writing the manuscript and reviewing the final draft of the manuscript, but authorship roles can vary. For all manuscripts, the corresponding author should be required to provide information on the specific contributions each author has made to the article".

In multi-author articles, particularly those involving different specialties, contributorship usually means that someone has to take responsibility for a particular section. For the two articles in question, it raises the point of responsibility for the histopathological evaluation of the two conditions. Could the corresponding authors, both surgeons, assume responsibility for the diagnoses?

Further, it also brings into question, the role of the referee [assuming the referee has access to the name of the contributors] and the editor of the journal, in the acceptance of manuscripts. Surely this lapse or irregularity should have been noticed and addressed by someone.

 
  References Top

1.Singh R, Hazarika P, Balakrishnan R, Gangwar N, Pujary P. Leiomyoma of the nasal septum. Indian J Cancer 2008;45:173-5.  Back to cited text no. 1  [PUBMED]  Medknow Journal
2.Halli R, Kini R, Bither S. Ductal adenocarcinoma of ventral surface of the tongue: An unusual presentation. Indian J Cancer 2008;45:176-8.  Back to cited text no. 2  [PUBMED]  Medknow Journal
3.Koli P, Dewoolkar VV, Butale U. Adenocarcinoma at angle of treitz: A report of two cases with review of literature. Indian J Cancer 2008;45:179-81.  Back to cited text no. 3  [PUBMED]  Medknow Journal




 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
Previous article Next article

    

  Site Map | What's new | Copyright and Disclaimer
  Online since 1st April '07
  2007 - Indian Journal of Cancer | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow