Topic | Vignette | Variable for randomisation | Statements varied |
Prior publication | A (experience) researcher submitted a manuscript describing the primary results of a study to a medical journal that (journal policy). A peer reviewer comments that the same study results have already been published (how the study had previously been reported) and that this prior publication means the work is not new and should not be considered for publication by the journal. | Experience |
|
Journal policy |
| ||
Previous reporting of study |
| ||
Authorship omission | A corresponding author, a (experience) member of staff, is ready to submit a manuscript. A research student helped with the design of the study, data collection and writing of the manuscript, but has since relocated and cannot be reached to provide final approval of the manuscript. After trying to contact the research student for (time), the corresponding author decides to remove the student’s name from the paper (level of recognition) and publishes the paper. | Experience |
|
Time |
| ||
Level of recognition |
| ||
Self-plagiarism | A (experience) author submitted a systematic review article to Journal X. A peer reviewer commented that parts of the paper reproduced work previously published by the same author in a textbook chapter. The reviewer claimed that about (quantity) of the text, mainly (material), appeared to be identical without any reference to the textbook chapter. | Experience |
|
Quantity of overlapping material |
| ||
Material |
| ||
Honorary authorship | Three (experience) authors from the same institution conducted a research study and wrote it up as a paper for publication. With agreement from the coauthors and after preparing the manuscript for submission, the corresponding author invited a fourth researcher to be the last-listed author. This author, a (seniority of fourth author), was familiar with the subject matter of the paper but had not been involved with the study. After agreeing to be an author, the fourth researcher gave (contribution). | Experience |
|
Seniority of fourth author |
| ||
Contribution |
| ||
Conflict of interest | A (experience) researcher submitted an unsolicited narrative review article to a medical journal. The article reviewed the treatment benefits of several major pharmaceutical products commonly used in the field. (Length of conflict) prior to this, the researcher (financial arrangement with company), but did not mention this on submission of the review. | Experience |
|
Length of conflict |
| ||
Financial arrangement with company |
|
The name of the variable that was randomised is included in brackets in the second column and the actual statements randomised are in the fourth column.