Abstract
BACKGROUND: In team science, invitation to writing groups can be subjective and secretive. Confronted with this challenge in the ISCHEMIA trial, with 320 participating sites, 4 coordinating centers, 6 core laboratories, and numerous committees, we adapted an existing model to develop a transparent, objective, and equitable method for determining authorship eligibility. METHODS: We developed a scoring system based on site performance of tasks critical to trial success that meet the ICJME criteria for authorship. Sites were ranked according to points earned, and points required for potential authorship were communicated to all sites. Site investigators were surveyed for their manuscript topic preferences for writing groups. Beyond the point-based system, authorship positions were also reserved for trial contributors who were not site investigators. RESULTS: To date, 50 original, peer-reviewed ISCHEMIA trial manuscripts have been published. In total, 208 authors from 33 countries participated in at least one publication. Of the 87 sites that randomized at least 15 participants over a mean of 5 years, 72% had authorship positions across published manuscripts. Surveys were sent to 334 site investigators and 27% responded. Among respondents, 61% indicated that ISCHEMIA was the first trial they had worked on with performance-based criteria for authorship invitation. Respondents agreed the system was transparent (81%), objective (83%), and equitable for early career researchers (70%) and underrepresented minorities in research (57%). CONCLUSIONS: ISCHEMIA employed a point-based authorship eligibility system that most authors found objective, merit-based, transparent, and equitable. Implementation of such a system should be considered for team science publications.