Multiple Voices on Authorship and Authority in Biomedical Publications

Lisa M. DeTora ; Sabina Alam Taylor and Francis (United Kingdom) ; Leslie Citrome New York Medical College ; J. Britt Holbrook New Jersey Institute of Technology ; Catherine Skobe Pfizer (United States) ; Tanya Stezhka Taylor and Francis (United Kingdom) ; Dikran Toroser Amgen (United States)

Abstract

The intersection of industry sponsorship, government regulation, academic interests, and medical journals is a core interest in biomedical research, and one that overlaps with concerns in the rhetoric of health and medicine (RHM). At stake in conversations about this intersection are authority and participation: who is and is not invited to offer opinions and, even when invited, whose opinions are taken seriously. Following, colleagues with ties to the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) present their ideas in response to questions about authorship and authority posed by another, who is also an RHM scholar. The answers of medical journal editors and publications professionals employed by corporate entities largely align with the view that both authorship and authority should be determined by scientific practice and knowledge rather than power relations or politics. A philosopher who gave an invited plenary talk at the national ISMPP meeting and participated in the organization’s first white paper offers a different perspective, considering the ways that fields self-constitute in part by bounding authority and authorship.

Journal
Rhetoric of Health and Medicine
Published
2021-02-09
DOI
10.5744/rhm.2020.4003
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Gold
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

References (0)

No references on file for this article.