Schizophrenia Working Group of the PGC

Schizophrenia Working Group of the PGC

Revision of Authorship Policy

Table of Contents

Document information

Background

Defining authorship

Authorship policy

Studies using only summary statistics

Main papers from the PGC SCZ group

PGC cross-disorder papers

Secondary data analysis of individual-level PGC SCZ

Methods development papers

Author responsibilities

Doing a PGC secondary analysis

Submitting a PGC SCZ secondary analysis manuscript

Document information

RERevision of PGC SCZauthorship policy

Date24 March 2015

ByA Corvin

Background

Since the beginning, the PGC SCZ working group’s policy has been to publish under a consortium byline. The “Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium” is the sole author of a paper and with individuals who made author-level contributions for the publication listed as members of the consortium. It was initially believed that this was a workable and fair approach.

However, with more experience, important limitations of the initial authorship policy have become apparent and this has resulted in revision to authorship policies across working groups. For some PGC colleagues, being listed in the .pdf is critical for various metric-based schemes used to assess research quality.It is thus important that names appear either on the masthead or at the end of the paper (but always in the .pdf, not only in PubMed).

Additionally, some PGC colleagues believed that they lost track of how their data were being used, and did not have the opportunity to be involved in the work.

It is important to note that the PGC has no influence on how journals handle this issue. It has to do with how journals and how PubMed works. It is cryptic and bewildering. For example, the 2011 PGC MDD paper in PubMed has had authors in 3 ways: (a) author=“PGC MDD”, no collaborators (when it first came online), (b) author=PGC MDD, collaborators=list of 100+ (about a year ago), and (c) author=PGC MDD and 100+ people (now). Why this happens and how it occurs is a mystery. The PGC did not request these changes – they just happened with no consultation, announcement, or explanation. Fortunately, the full list of authors appears in the .pdf.

If the above authorship styles are critical, then the only way we can ensure this is by using a traditional, named-author style. The PGC’s policy has always been that working groups determine authorship policy (for instance, the ADHD group used named authorships although the SCZ and BP groups have not).

Defining authorship

PGC SCZ study PIs determine the authors from their groupfor each paper. There are standard criteria for authorship on scientific papers (ICMJE criteria). These criteria are reasonable and widely accepted:

a)Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND

b)Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND

c)Final approval of the version to be published; AND

d)Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Note that criterion (a) includes those responsible for study collection. Note that criteria (b), (c), and (d) are also required for authorship.

The numbers per site should be reasonable and not excessive (e.g., 13 authors for 80 cases isunreasonable). There should be no gratuitous authorships (e.g., a head of department who was not directly involved in the study).

Authorship policy

This draftpolicy was derived as part of a consultation process with a subgroup of PI’s from the PGC SCZ and with PGC leads from other workgroups (BP, MDD) the aim being to develop a new consensus policy, where possible harmonized across workgroups.

Studies using only summary statistics

These data consist of lists of SNPs with alleles, positions, odds ratios, SE, p-values, etc. They contain no individual or identifying data. As is standard in the field, these data are publically available on the PGC web site ( Studies that use these data should cite the relevant PGC paper. No authorships are required.

(PGC-SCZ PIs can always obtain cohort level association analysis data and the meta-analysis script. PGC-SCZ groups can then generate meta-analysis results excluding their own cohort. The resulting summary statistics can be used by PGC-SCZ groups in the same way as the publically available results with no PGC-SCZ authorship required.)

Main papers from the PGC SCZ group

These papers usually report the results of a PGC SCZdata freeze (e.g., the 2014 Nature paper on the SCZ working group dataset). The authorship style is:

Publication under the banner ‘’SCZ working group of the PGC”
Individual and consortia authors are listed under ‘collaborators’ on PubMed and ‘contributors’ at the Nature website
The people who contributed most to the manuscript are listed first
The PGC SCZ study PIs who directed the work are at the end
All other individuals who made author-level contributions are listed alphabetically between the above

PGC cross-disorder papers

An important aim of the PGC is to foster research that compares and contrasts the genomics of multiple disorders studied by the PGC. A named author policy is not fair for PGC CDG papers. If we were to insist on named authorship, then we would be dictating authorship policy for all other PGC groups, and this is not reasonable. The authorship style is:

PGC CDG papers use a byline (“Cross-Disorder Working Group of the PGC”)
PGC SCZ authors to be included will correspond to the authorship list for the relevant PGC SCZ paper
All PGC SCZ authors need to be listed in the .pdf version of the paper (and should appear in the “collaborator” field in PubMed)
All PGC SCZ authors should meet all authorship criteria listed above (including the opportunity to read, comment, and approve a CDG manuscript)
Prior to submission, the lead author on a CDG paperusing PGC SCZ datamust do the following:
document that they spoke with the editor of the target journal
conveyed our needs (all PGC SCZ authors need to be listed in the .pdf version of the paper and to appear on PubMed in the “collaborator” field), and
was clearly assured that the journal would comply

This will be a strong and verifiable attempt to ensure that the needs of PGC SCZ members are met while enabling the scientific mandate of the PGC.

Secondary data analysis of individual-level PGC SCZ

By definition, these analyses must be sponsored by a PGC SCZ PI. The analysis includes evaluation of individual genotype and/or phenotype data. All secondary analyses must be approved by the PGC SCZ group. The authorship style is:

First/last priority positions determined by the group that did the secondary analysis
“Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium” is in the author list
Each PGC SCZ group that participates in this analysis is entitled to a reasonable but limited number of authors (e.g., 2-4 per study).Consultation required
All other authors will be included in supplementary text (and should appear in the “collaborator” field in PubMed)

Datasets which require explicit ‘opt in’ are listed in the gatekeeper document. PIs MUST give explicit permission. For other datasets, if a group does not agree with this policy or if informed consent is not consistent with the proposed analysis, then it is the responsibility of that PI to clearly and unambiguously opt out of a particular analysis before the analysis begins.

Method development papers

The PGC wishes to strongly encourage method development. If use of individual genotype/phenotype data is encumbered by authorship restrictions, then many statisticians will not be interested in using data held by the PGC. In the long term, this is not in anyone’s best interests.

The major goal of a method development paperis to use real data to perfect or test a new statistical or bioinformatics method. The main outcomes of these papers are the properties of the method: the point of the paper is the method, not SCZ.

If a method development paper were to generate a major result about SCZ, then it should be reclassified as “secondary data analysis” and follow the procedures and authorship requirements described above.

Methods development papers that use individual-level genotype and phenotype data from PGC SCZ samples should submit an analysis proposal, and cannot begin until the proposal is approved (see below). Methods that only use public summary data do not need approval. Thus, the authorship style is:

These papers require submission and approval of an analysis plan
Authorships are determined by the team working on the method
“Schizophrenia Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium” is in the author list
There are no named authors from the PGC SCZ working group (unless they actively participated in the project)
All other authors will be included in supplementary text (and should appear in the “collaborator” field in PubMed)
The manuscript will be circulated to the PGC SCZ group for comment prior to submission

Other

We anticipate that most papers that use PGC SCZ will fall into one of the categories above. There may be proposals for the use of genotype-level PGC-SCZ data which do not clearly fit into the above categories. In such cases, the analysis proposal can include an alternative authorship approach. The PGC-SCZ group as a whole could choose to accept or reject the entire proposal (including the authorship approach),if a group does not agree with this policy or if informed consent is not consistent with the proposed analysis, then it is the responsibility of that PI to clearly and unambiguously opt out of a particular analysis before the analysis begins.Datasets which require explicit ‘opt in’ are listed in the gatekeeper document. PIs MUST give explicit permission.

Author responsibilities

PGC publications typically have hundreds of authors. For maximal progress, it is imperative that PIs and authors are highly responsive and responsible. They need to respond to all queries promptly and provide accurate and up-to-date information. This is particularly the case for Nature family journals where even trivial author list changes after initial submission require explicit approval by all other authors.

Therefore, for the efficient management of the PGC SCZ group, the following steps are necessary:

PGC SCZ PIs will respond promptly to all requests from a writing team (within a few days)
PGC SCZ PIs will promptly supply lists of authors from their studies upon request
PGCSCZ PIs will ensure that authors meet authorship criteria (see above)
PGC SCZ PIs willbe responsible for ensuring that all names, initials, degrees, affiliations, and addresses are complete, accurate, and consistent.
For each PGC SCZ paper, there will be an “author freeze” date. On this date, the author and affiliation list will be deemed final – no additions or changes after this date. The PGC will not request changes to anypaper to correct errors that are the responsibility of a PI.

Doing a PGC secondary analysis

Step-by-step guide to submitting a secondary analysis proposal to a PGC working group.

A PGC SCZ PI must be involved and take responsibility for the conduct of the work – including adherence to the PGC SCZ authorship policies listed above.Proposers of secondary analyses should be aware of the protocols and timelines required for submission of a manuscript (see Appendix 3).

Complete the secondary analysis proposal form (
Submit the proposal to Jo Knight ()
Jowill check whether the proposal conflicts with currently approved proposals or for other reasons it may be considered unfavourably by the group
The proposal is then:
Returned to the proposer for clarification/revision (followed by resubmission) OR emailed to the PGC SCZ group
PGC SCZ PIs can discuss the proposal by email or teleconference
No response after two weeks is considered approval except for the datasets that require explicit ‘opt in’.
PGC SCZ members can ask to join the analysis team
Groups with similar proposals are encouraged to work together
The list of approved proposals is held by the working group chair or their delegate.

Submitting a PGC SCZ secondary analysis manuscript

It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to ensure that all authors are offered the standard fundamental rights of authors: to have the opportunity to read and provide comments on a manuscript prior to its submission for publication and to choose to withdraw their name from the authorship list.The PGC SCZ group assigns this responsibility to the corresponding author.

The corresponding author should be aware that many PGC authors are not signed up to PGC work-group email lists. Therefore, distribution to the PGC SCZemail list does not ensure that all named authors are given the fundamental rights of authorship – for this, study PIs must be involved.

Steps for submission of a manuscript:

When the manuscript is being prepared, the corresponding author emails the PGC SCZ chair describing the analysis conducted (e.g., title and abstract), the specific data/studies used, and attaches the approved secondary analysis proposal.
The PGC SCZgroup chair sends to the corresponding author: the current PI list and the current list of authors (names, affiliations, email, and study). It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to remove authors from studies that have opted out of the analysis/manuscript.
The corresponding author emails the manuscript plus supplementary material to the PGC SCZgroup chair and all SCZ PIs. The email could be adapted from the following:

Subject: “Manuscript for distribution to authors of PGC work-group authors”
Text:“Please find attached a NEW manuscript titled … This manuscript has … “
Include: a spread sheet of current authors.
IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PGC SCZ PIS TO ENSURE AUTHOR LISTS OF VARIOUS FREEZES ARE COMPLETE AND ACCURATE
“If I do not hear back from you in 3 WEEKS, then I assume you approve the manuscript for submission.”

PGC SCZPIs may wish to discuss the manuscript prior to circulation
PGC SCZ PIs must forward the manuscript to the authors associated with their cohort CC’ing the corresponding author (do we need that?)
The corresponding author should send the version of the manuscript to the PGC SCZPIs when submitted, resubmitted, or accepted
If the journal requests that all authors sign an authorship form then this should be sent to the PGC SCZ PIs. The PIs will then coordinate prompt completion of these forms within 2 weeks. If authorship forms are not received, then those not submitting authorship forms will be listed as collaborators rather than authors in the published paper.
Please see above for PGC SCZ policies regarding changes to authorship lists, particularly in regard to “author freeze” and the errata policy.

PGC MDD AuthorshipPage 1 of 4