Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
Background: Honorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences. Methods: Surveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts, and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14-item checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, TX, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency. Discussion: The outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration: This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/.
The main objective of the study is to determine if non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) in people with self-declared sensitivity to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) can be explained (across subjects) by exposure to RF EMF. Furthermore, we pioneered whether analysis at the individual level or at the group level may lead to different conclusions. By our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study exploring the data at the individual level. A group of 57 participants was equipped with a measurement set for five consecutive days. The measurement set consisted of a body worn exposimeter measuring the radiofrequency electromagnetic field in twelve frequency bands used for communication, a GPS logger, and an electronic diary giving cues at random intervals within a two to three hour interval. At every cue, a questionnaire on the most important health complaint and nine NSPS had to be filled out. We analysed the (time-lagged) associations between RF-EMF exposure in the included frequency bands and the total number of NSPS and self-rated severity of the most important health complaint. The manifestation of NSPS was studied during two different time lags - 0–1 h, and 1–4 h - after exposure and for different exposure metrics of RF EMF. The exposure was characterised by exposure metrics describing the central tendency and the intermittency of the signal, i.e. the time-weighted average exposure, the time above an exposure level or the rate of change metric. At group level, there was no statistically significant and relevant (fixed effect) association between the measured personal exposure to RF EMF and NSPS. At individual level, after correction for multiple testing and confounding, we found significant within-person associations between WiFi (the self-declared most important source) exposure metrics and the total NSPS score and severity of the most important complaint in one participant. However, it cannot be ruled out that this association is explained by residual confounding due to imperfect control for location or activities. Therefore, the outcomes have to be regarded very prudently. The significant associations were found for the short and the long time lag, but not always concurrently, so both provide complementary information. We also conclude that analyses at the individual level can lead to different findings when compared to an analysis at group level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104948 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-bolte-0856134/
MULTIFILE
