A clinic doctor transferring a patient as a coauthor of a case report: A preliminary study

Abstract Aim Contribution to the authorship, including that for case reports, should be appropriately evaluated. I have noticed a scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors listed as coauthors, prompting this investigation. I sought to offer suggestions on the possible reasons for this trend. Methods I checked case reports published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research , the Journal of Medical Case Reports , and the BMJ Case Reports . I identified case reports listing a clinic doctor as a coauthor. I consulted eight professors at Jichi Medical University to ascertain whether case reports from their departments included clinic doctors as coauthors and, if not, the reasons. Results Among 65 case reports from Japanese institutes published in the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Research , only one paper lists a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Of 100 and 50 papers published in the Journal of Medical Case Reports and BMJ Case Reports , respectively, none listed a clinic doctor as a coauthor. Six out of eight professors admitted to never considering the idea of including clinic doctors as coauthors. Conclusions The scarcity of case reports with clinic doctors as coauthors extends beyond Japanese obstetrics and gynecology, encompassing various specialties worldwide. Center doctors do not think of the idea that a clinic doctor should be a coauthor. A clinic doctor who transferred the patient should be considered as a candidate coauthor depending on his/her scientific contribution. Such an approach could foster an environment encouraging doctors to contribute to academic writing, regardless of their workplace.