CNP publication policy
Contents
CNP Publication Policy
(you can also download a docx here: [ http://phenomics.ucla.edu/publications.asp ])
(back to HTAC main page)
How to acknowledge CNP support
For all consortium publications, please cite the UL1 Coordinating Center grant (UL1-DE019580) as well as any of the individual consortium components (see Table below) that contributed to the work. To use this template you could copy and then simply delete the components that did not support the work.
Sample citation: This work was supported by the Consortium for Neuropsychiatric Phenomics (NIH Roadmap for Medical Research grants UL1-DE019580, RL1MH083268, RL1MH083269, RL1DA024853, RL1MH083270, RL1LM009833, PL1MH083271, and PL1NS062410).
If the journal does not permit citing a specific grant number, then “the NIH Roadmap for Medical Research/Common Fund” should be cited as having funded the research.
Submission to PubMed Central: Please note the importance of submission to PubMed Central:
- Submit consortium publications to PubMed Central and get a PubMed Central ID numbers. Here is the link to the original announcement:
- To submit, go to this link and click on the “Log in” on the upper right.
- http://www.nihms.nih.gov/
- You can do this through the eRA commons.
CNP Publication Policies
Please note the following material included in our initial application. This text includes principles, authorship guidelines, and also requires that manuscripts also be submitted for review and logging by the Executive Operations Team.
Dissemination Policies
The architects of the Roadmap Initiative Interdisciplinary Research Program have been acutely aware of the challenges faced by the so-called “interstitial” team members who often serve critical roles in interdisciplinary research. Many current models for research are “lab-focused,” with a single lab director serving either as the sole faculty member, or leader of a handful of faculty, and overseeing the work of 4 to 20 graduate students, research assistants, and other staff. In contrast, the CNP brings together 52 team members, and engages them in a family of research projects that are so intimately interwoven that it is difficult to assign precisely individuals’ effort to each component, since many individuals play critical roles across multiple projects (see Table 2, summarizing engagement of team members across components). The projects are also large, complex, and each critically depends on a wide diversity of expertise for its success.
We believe the products of this work will be outstanding, and indeed represent work that could not be achieved using traditional team models, but the new structure we propose extends beyond time-honored traditions that have guided the identification of merits for specific contributions to scholarly work. For the CNP we have developed publication policies, adapted from those used at Harvard Medical School (see Table 7), which are similar in many respects to those embraced by the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association.
The key elements of this policy emphasize: (1) attempts to balance credit with responsibility in the most transparent way; (2) establishing formal mechanisms for monitoring compliance with the guidelines; (3) establishing a formal mechanism for expression of concern about lack of recognition; and (4) changing our policies if these are found to lag behind rapidly changing standards.
To address transparency, the CNP will adopt the proposal proposed by the Council of Science Editors Task Force on Authorship, Draft White Paper (Part 5. Solutions, by Drummond Rennie, May 17, 1999)(see also [128-132]):
The proposal is to list contributors to scientific papers according to their contribution, the latter to be listed for the reader, not just for the editor, in a footnote. The co-workers would meet at the end of the project to decide on each person’s contribution to be disclosed, and the relative contribution would determine the order on the byline. The contributors and editors would decide what degree of contribution merited a place on the byline. It is often unrealistic to demand that all contributors take responsibility for all aspects of the study. Certain of the co-workers should assure themselves of the integrity of the whole, and appear as guarantors of the entire article. Guarantors would note this added function to the reader in their disclosure of contribution. The Lancet, the British Medical Journal, the American Journal of Public Health, the Annals of Internal Medicine, and Radiology are among the journals that have adopted variations of this plan.
We add to this policy slightly in several ways. First, we believe it is more effective to forge agreements in advance when possible, and thus in the early phases of each project we expect component PI’s to take a lead in identifying roles and expected authorships in the ultimate products. The PI’s and team members of each component application already have understandings regarding their roles in these projects by aim, and thus there are individuals expected to 'take the lead' in dissemination of work products. We expect our PI’s to play the pivotal roles in their projects to guide the dissemination of results obtained in the Consortium, with special attention to the needs of less experienced investigators and recognition of interstitial personnel in acknowledgements.
To monitor compliance with the guidelines, our Executive Operations Team will review all CNP submissions for publication or presentation and review the list of contributors and their contributions in the context of the work described, with attention to possible discrepancies between contributions and authorship or authorship order. In addition including the lists of contributors and contributions in publications, the CNP U54 administrative group will maintain a database with this information for both publications and presentations. These data will be available to the individuals who are listed, and also to their supervisors who may use this information to support appointments, advancements, and other forms of recognition.
The mechanisms for complaint and appeal will start in the authorship team, if necessary be reviewed by the most involved Component Principal Investigator (although in some instances this may be difficult to discern for work spanning components, so multiple PI’s may be involved), and if resolution is not achieved the Executive Operations Team will review concerns in meetings without the involved parties, and make recommendations back to the Authorship groups. If these recommendations are not accepted the case will be brought to the Steering Committee for adjudication. These recommendations should be final given that all investigators, as a condition of submission under RFA-RM-06-008 agree to abide by Steering Committee decisions. The University Senate is also available, however, to individuals seeking further appeal.
