|Year : 2022 | Volume
| Issue : 3 | Page : 241
From the desk of editor in chief
ML Avinash Tejasvi
Editor in Chief, JIAOMR, Professor and HOD Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Kamineni Institute of Dental Science, Telangana, India
|Date of Submission||18-Sep-2022|
|Date of Acceptance||20-Sep-2022|
|Date of Web Publication||26-Sep-2022|
M L Avinash Tejasvi
Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Kamineni Institute of Dental Science, Telangana
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
|How to cite this article:|
Avinash Tejasvi M L. Editorial Inscription
From the desk of editor in chief. J Indian Acad Oral Med Radiol 2022;34:241
Greetings from the Editorial Team
Knowledge in various academic fields is expanding every day, and all this new knowledge is the result of good academic research. Academic research involves the contribution of new knowledge to the scientific community rather than just choosing any topic and collecting and analyzing the data. Publishing good quality research is essential for our specialty. Thus, good research and publications are required for the growth of the academic field based on the quest for new knowledge.
The “publish or perish” mantra creates a situation where many publications are out of a sense of compulsion. In the current scenario of research publication authorship, prestige is attached to the number of publications, career advancement options, research funding, and social recognition. In India, the right of authorship was derived from the Indian Copy Right Act of June 14, 1957. The act provides copyright protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works. The pressure on academicians leads to various forms of scientific misconduct. Authorship is just one of them.
A novel–innovative creation in work is always appreciated and deserves to be honored. The author, who is the real creator of the work, is the first owner of the copyright. However, most authorship issues arise when there is a joint contribution to the work as in an academic research process. The act also recognizes the position of co-authors to work. Each paper's author should meet the following four criteria or guidelines given by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE): a) substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work. b) drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content. c) final approval of the version to be published. d) agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
All who have substantially contributed to the research work have a right to be co-authors of the manuscript. Inappropriate authorship may involve honorary authors, individuals named as authors but who have not met authorship criteria and have not contributed substantially to be able to take public responsibility for the work. Nevertheless, a gifted author cannot escape from the liability as all authors should fulfill the ICMJE criteria to qualify for authorship. The Korean stem cell scandal is a clear example where a gifted author, in vain, tried to deny his role in the study when authors were booked for research misconduct. Ghost authorship is a situation where one or more substantial contributor is omitted from the author's list. Be it intentional or unintentional, both qualify for authorship misconduct. Authorship should be earned to enjoy it than gifted. This special note on authorship is in accordance with the problems that we faced during the ongoing editorial tenure. Hence, it is a genuine request for all the authors to follow the ICMJE guidelines to secure professional ethics and morality and thereby be compelling to confer with judicial and non-judicial remedies.
| References|| |
Rennie D, Yank V, Emanuel L. When authorship fails: A proposal to make contributions accountable. JAMA1997;278:579-85.
Holden C. Korean stem cell scandal. Schatten: Pitt panel finds'misbehavior' but not misconduct. Science 2006;311:928.