ReviewMedical oncology (Northwood, London, England)2025
Ethical and academic dilemmas in authorship of clinical research publications: a medical oncologist's perspective.
Review in Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authorship in clinical research carries significant academic, financial, and social implications. However, determining rightful authorship often introduces ethical and professional dilemmas, particularly in large, multidisciplinary studies, such as those common in oncology. This article explores the ethical complexities surrounding authorship in clinical research from the viewpoint of a medical oncologist. It addresses issues, such as academic jealousy, the inclusion of industry-affiliated researchers, honorary authorship, and the role of patient recruitment in authorship qualification. By examining current guidelines, ethical considerations, and practical cases, this paper aims to offer insights into fostering fair and transparent authorship practices in the field of clinical oncology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.