About You
Which best describes your primary professional setting? Academic medical center / university
Community or private practice
Industry
Government / regulatory agency
Research institute
Other
About You
Which best describes your current career stage? Student
Resident / fellow
Early-career faculty / professional
Mid-career faculty / professional
Senior faculty / professional
Emeritus / retired
Other
About You
Which best describes your current role level? Early career
Mid-career
Senior / leadership
Other
About You
Which best describes your current role level? Early career
Mid-career
Senior / leadership
Other
About You
Which best describes your primary professional background? Choose one.
Physician
Advanced practice clinician (NP or PA)
Nurse
Pharmacist
Research scientist / investigator
Epidemiologist / biostatistician / data scientist
Other scientific or technical professional
Business / management / administration
Other healthcare professional
Other professional background
About You
Which areas best describe your current professional work or training? Select up to three.
Not yet specialized / general training
Dermatology / Mohs surgery
Medical oncology / hematology-oncology
Surgery / surgical oncology
Radiation oncology
Pathology / dermatopathology
Otolaryngology / head and neck surgery
Other clinical specialty
Basic / translational research
Epidemiology / biostatistics / data science
Clinical development
Medical affairs
Publications / medical communications / editorial
Regulatory / government
Executive / organizational leadership
Other
You have reached the maximum number of selections.
Continue About You
Of the areas you selected, how would you rank them by how strongly they reflect your professional identity? Tap them in order, starting with the strongest.
Not yet specialized / general training Dermatology / Mohs surgery Medical oncology / hematology-oncology Surgery / surgical oncology Radiation oncology Pathology / dermatopathology Otolaryngology / head and neck surgery Other clinical specialty Basic / translational research Epidemiology / biostatistics / data science Clinical development Medical affairs Publications / medical communications / editorial Regulatory / government Executive / organizational leadership Other
Reset ranking Continue About You
Approximately what proportion of your usual professional time is devoted to direct patient care? Choose one.
None
Less than 25%
25–49%
50–74%
75% or more
About You
Approximately how many peer-reviewed publications have you authored? 0
1–5
6–20
21–50
51–100
More than 100
About You
Have you ever served in a formal editorial role for a peer-reviewed journal? Yes, currently
Yes, previously
No
Why Authorship Matters
Why is authorship valuable to you professionally? Select up to three that matter most to you.
Sharing findings and ideas with the field
Making a lasting contribution to the scientific literature
Receiving appropriate credit for my contributions
Building my professional reputation, expertise, or leadership in a field
Advancing my career or creating future professional opportunities
Supporting grant or funding opportunities
Building collaborations and professional relationships
Meeting expectations of my institution, company, or professional role
Authorship is not particularly important to my current professional goals
Other
You have reached the maximum number of selections.
Continue Why Authorship Matters
Of the reasons you selected, how would you rank their importance to you? Tap them in order, starting with the most important.
Sharing findings and ideas with the field Making a lasting contribution to the scientific literature Receiving appropriate credit for my contributions Building my professional reputation, expertise, or leadership in a field Advancing my career or creating future professional opportunities Supporting grant or funding opportunities Building collaborations and professional relationships Meeting expectations of my institution, company, or professional role Authorship is not particularly important to my current professional goals Other
Reset ranking Continue Why Authorship Matters
Suppose authorship had no effect on hiring, promotion, funding, compensation, or professional reputation. How important would being an author still be to you? Very important
Somewhat important
Not very important
Not important at all
Why Authorship Matters
Compared with other meaningful professional contributions—such as clinical care, research, teaching, mentorship, collaboration, program or product development, and organizational leadership—how much weight does authorship receive in career advancement and professional recognition in your environment? Far too little
Somewhat too little
About the right amount
Somewhat too much
Far too much
Not sure / not applicable
Authorship Guidance
How familiar are you with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria? Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
Slightly familiar
Not at all familiar
Authorship Guidance
How often do you use the ICMJE criteria or other formal authorship guidance when making authorship decisions? Always
Often
Sometimes
Rarely
Never
Not applicable
Authorship Volume and Responsibility
For these questions, “lead or senior author” means an authorship position that ordinarily signals substantial intellectual responsibility—for example, first/co-first or senior/last author, where applicable. Think about a publication rate sustained over several years rather than a single unusually productive year.
Thinking about your actual professional responsibilities—including clinical, research, administrative, teaching, and other work—what is the highest sustained rate at which you believe you could serve as a lead or senior author on original research papers while still meeting the intellectual contribution, critical review, final approval, and accountability responsibilities expected of that role? Choose one.
1 or fewer per year
2–3 per year
4–6 per year
7–11 per year
12–23 per year (about 1–2 per month)
24–35 per year (about 2–3 per month)
36–47 per year (about 3–4 per month)
48 or more per year (4+ per month)
I do not think there is a meaningful fixed publication-rate limit
Not applicable — I do not personally serve as a lead or senior author on original research
Authorship Volume and Responsibility
Without knowing more about a person's role or circumstances, at what sustained rate of lead or senior authorship on original research papers would publication volume alone prompt you to look more closely at whether the responsibilities of authorship were actually being met? Choose one.
1 or fewer per year
2–3 per year
4–6 per year
7–11 per year
12–23 per year (about 1–2 per month)
24–35 per year (about 2–3 per month)
36–47 per year (about 3–4 per month)
48 or more per year (4+ per month)
Volume alone would not prompt additional scrutiny
Your Experience
Which of the following have you personally had meaningful experience with? Select all that apply.
I have been invited to join an abstract or manuscript late in its development
I have been involved in deciding to invite an external expert to join an abstract or manuscript late in its development
I have cared for patients whose clinical data were later used in retrospective research
I have led or participated in retrospective research using data from patients cared for by clinicians who were not otherwise involved in the research
I have participated as an investigator in a multicenter clinical trial
I have been involved in publication planning or authorship decisions for multicenter clinical trials
I have participated in a Delphi, consensus panel, guideline, or similar project that resulted in a publication
I have organized or led a Delphi, consensus panel, guideline, or similar project that resulted in a publication
None of the above
You have reached the maximum number of selections.
Continue Invited-expert perspective
A recognized expert is invited to review an abstract or manuscript shortly before submission. They were not involved in the original study.
Based on your experience, how comfortable are you generally with accepting a late invitation to authorship? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Invited-expert perspective
Have you ever declined a late invitation to authorship because you did not feel your contribution justified authorship? Yes
No
Not sure / don't recall
Invited-expert perspective
Suppose you carefully reviewed the work, spent meaningful time on it, but did not make any substantive changes. How comfortable would you be accepting authorship? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Invited-expert perspective
Suppose you were not involved in the study design or analysis and did not have direct access to the underlying data. How comfortable would you be accepting authorship? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Inviter / industry perspective
A recognized expert is invited to review an abstract or manuscript shortly before submission. They were not involved in the original study.
How comfortable are you with making that kind of late authorship invitation? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Inviter / industry perspective
Suppose the invited expert carefully reviews the work but does not make any substantive changes. How comfortable would you be continuing to offer authorship? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Inviter / industry perspective
Suppose the invited expert was not involved in the study design or analysis and did not have direct access to the underlying data. How comfortable would you be continuing to offer authorship? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Inviter / industry perspective
When an external expert is invited to join an abstract or manuscript late in its development, which considerations have you seen meaningfully influence that decision? Select all that apply.
Their scientific or clinical expertise is expected to improve the interpretation or presentation of the work
The invitation recognizes contributions they made to the broader study or program that are not fully reflected in this specific manuscript
Their inclusion provides representation for an important investigator, site, discipline, or collaborating group
Their professional standing is expected to strengthen the credibility, visibility, or impact of the work
The invitation helps maintain or strengthen an important professional collaboration or relationship
Other
You have reached the maximum number of selections.
Continue Inviter / industry perspective
Of the considerations you selected, which one most often determines whether the authorship invitation is actually made? Choose one.
Their scientific or clinical expertise is expected to improve the interpretation or presentation of the work
The invitation recognizes contributions they made to the broader study or program that are not fully reflected in this specific manuscript
Their inclusion provides representation for an important investigator, site, discipline, or collaborating group
Their professional standing is expected to strengthen the credibility, visibility, or impact of the work
The invitation helps maintain or strengthen an important professional collaboration or relationship
Other
Clinician perspective
A retrospective study is performed using clinical data from patients seen within a practice or multidisciplinary group. Some clinicians cared for many of the patients whose records form the dataset but were not involved in developing the research question, designing the study, analyzing the data, or drafting the manuscript.
If a substantial portion of the study population came from patients you cared for, how strongly would you feel that you should be offered an opportunity to participate as an author? Very strongly
Somewhat strongly
Not very strongly
Not at all
Clinician perspective
If you were not approached about authorship in that situation, how bothered would you be? Very bothered
Somewhat bothered
Not very bothered
Not bothered at all
Researcher / study-lead perspective
A retrospective study is performed using clinical data from patients seen within a practice or multidisciplinary group. Some clinicians cared for many of the patients whose records form the dataset but were not involved in developing the research question, designing the study, analyzing the data, or drafting the manuscript.
If clinicians were substantially responsible for the care that generated the data used in the study, how strongly do you feel an obligation to offer them an opportunity to contribute toward authorship? Very strongly
Somewhat strongly
Not very strongly
Not at all
Researcher / study-lead perspective
Which best reflects your view? Caring for the patients whose data make the study possible should itself carry meaningful weight toward authorship
Clinical care alone is not enough for authorship, but those clinicians should generally be offered an opportunity to contribute further
Authorship should depend only on contributions to the research itself, regardless of who provided the clinical care
Unsure
Academic / investigator perspective
For investigators participating in multicenter trials, two questions are often left unclear: Will my contribution lead to authorship? If so, where will I appear on the paper?
Before agreeing to participate in a multicenter clinical trial, how clear are you usually about whether your contribution could lead to authorship? Very clear
Somewhat clear
Somewhat unclear
Very unclear
Academic / investigator perspective
When authorship expectations are discussed before or during a trial, who most often initiates that conversation? Choose one.
Someone on the investigator / site team
Someone on the sponsor / company team
Clinical operations / trial management / CRO
It is usually raised jointly by the investigator and sponsor teams
It varies substantially from trial to trial
Authorship expectations are usually not discussed explicitly
Academic / investigator perspective
Who should be primarily responsible for initiating the authorship conversation? Choose one.
The investigator / site team
The sponsor / company team
Clinical operations / trial management / CRO
Shared responsibility between the investigator and sponsor teams
Unsure
Academic / investigator perspective
In your experience, which factor most strongly determines whether an investigator is included as an author on the primary trial publication? Choose one.
Patient enrollment / accrual
Site principal investigator role
Scientific or intellectual contribution
Participation in trial leadership or steering committees
Contribution to data interpretation or manuscript development
Prespecified publication-plan rules
Sponsor/publication-team discretion
Other
Academic / investigator perspective
In your experience, which factor most strongly determines where an investigator appears on the author list? Choose one.
Patient enrollment / accrual
Site principal investigator role
Scientific or intellectual contribution
Participation in trial leadership or steering committees
Contribution to data interpretation or manuscript development
Prespecified publication-plan rules
Sponsor/publication-team discretion
Other
Academic / investigator perspective
At one site, two investigators from different disciplines—for example, the site principal investigator and another investigator who leads a major protocol-specific component of care—both spend substantial time identifying and consenting patients, providing protocol-specific care, and ensuring trial data are captured. The publication plan allows only one investigator from that site to be listed as an author. How comfortable are you with only one of them receiving authorship? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Industry / sponsor / publications perspective
For investigators participating in multicenter trials, two questions are often left unclear: Will my contribution lead to authorship? If so, where will I appear on the paper?
Before a site agrees to participate in a multicenter clinical trial, how clear are the authorship expectations typically made to investigators? Very clear
Somewhat clear
Somewhat unclear
Very unclear
Industry / sponsor / publications perspective
When authorship expectations are discussed before or during a trial, who most often initiates that conversation? Choose one.
Someone on the investigator / site team
Someone on the sponsor / company team
Clinical operations / trial management / CRO
It is usually raised jointly by the investigator and sponsor teams
It varies substantially from trial to trial
Authorship expectations are usually not discussed explicitly
Industry / sponsor / publications perspective
Who should be primarily responsible for initiating the authorship conversation? Choose one.
The investigator / site team
The sponsor / company team
Clinical operations / trial management / CRO
Shared responsibility between the investigator and sponsor teams
Unsure
Industry / sponsor / publications perspective
When deciding which trial investigators are included as authors on the primary publication, which consideration most often carries the greatest weight? Choose one.
Patient enrollment / accrual
Site principal investigator role
Scientific or intellectual contribution
Participation in trial leadership or steering committees
Contribution to data interpretation or manuscript development
Prespecified publication-plan rules
Fair representation across participating sites
Keeping the total author list manageable
Investigator relationships and engagement
Other
Industry / sponsor / publications perspective
When deciding author order, which consideration most often carries the greatest weight? Choose one.
Patient enrollment / accrual
Site principal investigator role
Scientific or intellectual contribution
Participation in trial leadership or steering committees
Contribution to data interpretation or manuscript development
Prespecified publication-plan rules
Fair representation across participating sites
Sponsor/publication-team discretion
Other
Industry / sponsor / publications perspective
If two investigators at the same site both make substantial contributions, how comfortable are you with a publication plan that allows only one investigator from that site to be listed as an author? Very comfortable
Somewhat comfortable
Somewhat uncomfortable
Very uncomfortable
Participant perspective
A Delphi or consensus project includes a group of experts who complete multiple rounds of rating, commenting, and refining statements. Their input helps shape the final recommendations. A smaller writing group then analyzes the results and prepares the manuscript.
How much weight should substantive participation in a Delphi or consensus process carry toward authorship? It should generally be sufficient to warrant authorship
It should be a major contribution, but additional manuscript involvement should still be required
It should be one contribution among several considered
It should carry little or no weight toward authorship
Not sure
Participant perspective
If a participant's consensus contributions were substantial but they had not yet met the full authorship criteria, should they generally be offered an opportunity to review or revise the manuscript, contribute intellectually, and qualify for authorship? Yes
No
Unsure
Organizer / study-lead perspective
A Delphi or consensus project includes a group of experts who complete multiple rounds of rating, commenting, and refining statements. Their input helps shape the final recommendations. A smaller writing group then analyzes the results and prepares the manuscript.
How much weight should substantive participation in a Delphi or consensus process carry toward authorship? It should generally be sufficient to warrant authorship
It should be a major contribution, but additional manuscript involvement should still be required
It should be one contribution among several considered
It should carry little or no weight toward authorship
Not sure
Organizer / study-lead perspective
If a participant's consensus contributions were substantial but they had not yet met the full authorship criteria, should the writing group generally offer them an opportunity to review or revise the manuscript, contribute further, and qualify for authorship? Yes
No
Unsure
Editor Perspective
Which of the following would most prompt you to look more closely at whether the listed authors meet authorship criteria? Select up to three.
Contribution statements are vague or do not clearly distinguish individual roles
Some authors appear to have contributed primarily through patient enrollment or data provision, with little other involvement
Some authors appear to have had little involvement in interpretation or manuscript review/revision
It is unclear whether all authors approved the final manuscript
It is unclear whether all authors can accept accountability for the work
A senior or well-known author appears to have been added without a clearly documented contribution
The author list is difficult to reconcile with the scope of the work and the stated contributions
I generally rely on the authors' attestation unless there is specific information suggesting a problem
Other
You have reached the maximum number of selections.
Continue Editor Perspective
If an authorship concern arises during peer review or editorial assessment, which best reflects the journal's role? The journal should generally accept the author group's attestation unless there is clear evidence of a problem
The journal should ask for clarification or more detailed contribution statements when concerns arise
The journal should require the authors to resolve the issue before publication
The journal should involve the relevant institution(s) when a substantial dispute cannot be resolved
Unsure
Ready to submit?
You can use the Back button to review or change any response before submitting.
Your responses have not been submitted yet.
Submit survey