ObjectiveA high prevalence of authorship problems can have a severe impact on the integrity of the research process. We evaluated the authorship practices of clinicians from the same university hospital in 2019 to compare them with our 2003 data and to find out if the practices had changed.MethodsPractitioners were randomly selected from the hospital database. The telephone interviews were conducted by a single researcher using a simplified interview guide compared with the one used in 2003. The doctors were informed that (...) their answers would be aggregated without the possibility of identifying the respondents. During the interviews, the researcher ticked the boxes with the answers on a paper file.ResultsWe interviewed 26 clinicians from various medical specialties. They were unfamiliar with the ICMJE criteria for writing medical articles and felt that these criteria were not well met in general. With regard to ways of reducing the practice of honorary authors, the participants clearly felt that asking for a signature was hypocritical and of little use. The ghost authors were well known; this practice was considered as rather rare. The ‘publish or perish’ has always been cited as being responsible for bad practices. We compared these results with those observed in 2003 and no improvement has been observed in the past 15 years.ConclusionFor the second time in France, within a 15-year interval, we have shown that the ICMJE criteria were ignored and that honorary authorship was frequent. (shrink)

BackgroundImplementing responsible conduct of research and monitoring bad practices requires time and tact. In France, it was in 2015 that the wishes of those in charge of research proposed the appointment of research integrity officers (RIOs) in all universities, national higher education schools, and research institutions. Our objectives were to search for information to describe the RI development and to analyze the RIOs’ profiles.MethodsThe OFIS (Office Français de l’Intégrité Scientifique) website lists all public research institutions and universities (RIUs) and their (...) designated RIOs. During the period between 6 and 14 October 2018, and on 2 May 2019 (updating), we entered two keywords (“plagiat” and “intégrité”) into the search engines on the RIU homepages and retrieved the relevant information (including “research” and “scientific” integrity when “intégrité” was entered). We consulted the governance and downloaded the organigram to determine whether the RIO positions and names were mentioned. We searched for the domains of expertise, sex, and age of the RIOs from their CVs (institutional websites), LinkedIn profiles, and various Google links.ResultsThe OFIS website lists 142 RIUs. Searching for the keyword “plagiarism” retrieved 25 RIUs; however, the web information was minimal, and consisted entirely of charters, interviews, and rare training modules. The keyword “integrity” turned up 23 RIUs. Nonetheless, there was little information available beyond notices for seminars, events, and a few training modules. Of the total 142 RIUs, 66.2% (n = 94) had named 96 RIOs. Furthermore, 29.2% RIOs (n = 28) were female and 70.8% (n = 68) were male; 38 RIOs were retired (> 65 years old) 58 were active (< 65 years old), and had a RIO function added to their usual laboratory activities.ConclusionThere is a lack of information about RI on the websites of French universities and research organizations, which may reflect a lack of information and commitment in the institutions themselves. (shrink)

La recherche de qualité dans le système de santé est un objectif commun des professionnels, des décideurs et des usagers. L’évaluation des technologies médicales et la formalisation de l’état des connaissances scientifiques en médecine sont deux démarches ayant pour objectif l’amélioration de la prise de décision pour les autorités publiques et pour les professionnels de santé et usagers. L’innovation ne devrait pas être mise en cause par les procédures d’évaluation, ni par les divers liens d’intérêts des membres des groupes de (...) travail, y compris des experts. L’éducation des acteurs, dont les enseignants et décideurs, doit améliorer la qualité de l’expertise scientifique en médecine.The goal of quality in the health-care system is common to professionals, policy-makers and users. Assessments of medical technologies and formalised expressions of the state of the art of medical knowledge both aim to improve decision-making for the public authorities and for health care professionals and users. Innovation should not be brought into question by the assessment procedure itself or by the various interested connections of working group members, including experts : the quality of expert scientific assessments in medicine must rely on the education of all those involved, including teachers and decision-makers. (shrink)