Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 473, Issue 2, pp 729–735 | Cite as

Do Corresponding Authors Take Responsibility for Their Work? A Covert Survey

  • Teun TeunisEmail author
  • Sjoerd P. F. T. Nota
  • Joseph H. Schwab
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Publication of a manuscript does not end an author’s responsibilities. Reasons to contact an author after publication include clarification, access to raw data, and collaboration. However, legitimate questions have been raised regarding whether these responsibilities generally are being met by corresponding authors of biomedical publications.

Questions/purposes

This study aims to establish (1) what proportion of corresponding authors accept the responsibility of correspondence; (2) identify characteristics of responders; and (3) assess email address decay with time. We hypothesize that the response rate is unrelated to journal impact factor.

Methods

We contacted 450 corresponding authors throughout various fields of biomedical research regarding the availability of additional data from their study, under the pretense of needing these data for a related review article. Authors were randomly selected from 45 journals whose impact factors ranged from 52 to 0; the source articles were published between May 2003 and May 2013. The proportion of corresponding authors who replied, along with author characteristics were recorded, as was the proportion of emails that were returned for inactive addresses; 446 authors were available for final analysis.

Results

Fifty-three percent (190/357) of the authors with working email addresses responded to our request. Clinical researchers were more likely to reply than basic/translational scientists (51% [114/225] versus 34% [76/221]; p < 0.001). Impact factor and other author characteristics did not differ. Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of replying decreased by 15% per year (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79–0.91; p < 0.001), and showed a positive relationship between clinical research and response (OR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.3–2.9; p = 0.001). In 2013 all email addresses (45/45) were reachable, but within 10 years, 49% (21/43) had become invalid.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that contacting corresponding authors is problematic throughout the field of biomedical research. Defining the responsibilities of corresponding authors by journals more explicitly—particularly after publication of their manuscript—may increase the response rate on data requests. Possible other ways to improve communication after research publication are: (1) listing more than one email address per corresponding author, eg, an institutional and personal address; (2) specifying all authors’ email addresses; (3) when an author leaves an institution, send an automated reply offering alternative ways to get in touch; and (4) linking published manuscripts to research platforms.

Keywords

Impact Factor Email Address Journal Impact Factor Individual Participant Data Average Impact Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jos de Bruin, Drs and David Ring MD, PhD (Orthopaedic Hand and Upper Extremity Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA) for their thorough reading and helpful comments.

References

  1. 1.
    Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012;483:531–533.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blumenthal D, Campbell EG, Anderson MS, Causino N, Louis KS. Withholding research results in academic life science: evidence from a national survey of faculty. JAMA. 1997;277:1224–1228.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374:86–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ. 2008;336:1472–1474.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leberg PL, Neigel JE. Enhancing the retrievability of population genetic survey data? An assessment of animal mitochondrial DNA studies. Evolution. 1999;53:1961–1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Menendez ME, Bot AG, Hageman MG, Neuhaus V, Mudgal CS, Ring D. Computerized adaptive testing of psychological factors: relation to upper-extremity disability. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e149.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011;10:712.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riley RD, Lambert PC, Abo-Zaid G. Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting. BMJ. 2010;340:c221.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Savage CJ, Vickers AJ. Empirical study of data sharing by authors publishing in PLoS journals. PloS One. 2009;4:e7078.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Science and Scholarly Research Division. Journal Citation Reports®. Available at: http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/analytical/jcr/. Accessed November 3, 2013.
  11. 11.
    Simmonds MC, Higgins JP, Stewart LA, Tierney JF, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG. Meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized trials: a review of methods used in practice. Clin Trials. 2005;2:209–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Teunis T, Nota SP, Hornicek FJ, Schwab JH, Lozano-Calderon SA. Outcome after reconstruction of the proximal humerus for tumor resection: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472:2245–2253.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Vasilevsky NA, Brush MH, Paddock H, Ponting L, Tripathy SJ, Larocca GM, Haendel MA. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;1:e148.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vines TH, Albert AY, Andrew RL, Debarre F, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Moore JS, Renaut S, Rennison DJ. The availability of research data declines rapidly with article age. Curr Biol. 2014;24:94–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vines TH, Andrew RL, Bock DG, Franklin MT, Gilbert KJ, Kane NC, Moore JS, Moyers BT, Renaut S, Rennison DJ, Veen T, Yeaman S. Mandated data archiving greatly improves access to research data. FASEB J. 2013;27:1304–1308.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D. Willingness to share research data is related to the strength of the evidence and the quality of reporting of statistical results. PloS One. 2011;6:e26828.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wicherts JM, Borsboom D, Kats J, Molenaar D. The poor availability of psychological research data for reanalysis. Am Psychol. 2006;61:726–728.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wren JD, Grissom JE, Conway T. E-mail decay rates among corresponding authors in MEDLINE: the ability to communicate with and request materials from authors is being eroded by the expiration of e-mail addresses. EMBO Rep. 2006;7:122–127.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Teun Teunis
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sjoerd P. F. T. Nota
    • 1
  • Joseph H. Schwab
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Musculoskeletal Oncology ServiceMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Musculoskeletal Oncology Service, Spine Surgery ServiceMassachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations