Authorship conflict in Bangladesh: an exploratory study

This study aimed to explore the causes, types, and consequences of authorship conflicts among the researchers of selected research institutions in Dhaka, Bangladesh; and to suggest ways to reduce conflicts. A sample of 100 researchers was given a semi‐structured questionnaire; 45 subjects responded. The responses were confidential and anonymous. Over two‐thirds of the respondents were aware of authorship conflicts, and one‐third had actually faced conflicts with their co‐authors. Of them, four faced conflicts with their juniors, while 13 faced conflicts with their seniors or supervisors. The primary causes of such conflicts appear to be unethical claims of authorship, violation of authorship order, and deprivation of authorship. In most cases, the victims became frustrated and had to give up, and avoided a direct clash to safeguard their job. Four respondents claimed to have been victimized for raising their voice. Conflict was never resolved in seven cases. To reduce conflicts, respondents suggested that authorship should be decided before the study begins, order of authorship must be determined according to contribution, and a standard code of authorship should be followed strictly. Authorship conflicts arise among researchers mostly due to what they regard as unethical practice of their co‐authors, supervisors, and department heads in the absence of any formal authorship policy in the institutions. A standard code of authorship, sensitization of researchers to the problem through open discussions and advocacy, and formation of a grievance redress committee are suggested to minimize such conflicts. Although the sample size was small, some of the specific recommendations will be appropriate in many other cases.     

Monocyte HLADR and Immune Dysregulation Index as Biomarkers for COVID-19 Severity and Mortality

Immune dysregulation in COVID-19 is the major causal factor associated with disease progression and mortality. Role of monocyte HLA-DR (mHLA-DR), neutrophil CD64 (nCD64) and Immune dysregulation index (IDI) were studied in COVID-19 patients for assessing severity and outcome. Results were compared with other laboratory parameters. Antibody bound per cell for mHLA-DR, nCD64 and IDI were measured in 100 COVID-19 patients by flow cytometry within 12 h of hospital admission. Thirty healthy controls (HC) were included. Clinical and laboratory parameters like C - reactive protein (CRP), Procalcitonin (PCT), Absolute Lymphocyte count (ALC), Absolute Neutrophil count (ANC) and Neutrophil to Lymphocyte ratio (NLR) were recorded. Patients were followed up until recovery with discharge or death. Parameters from 54 mild (MCOV-19), 46 severe (SCOV-19) and 30 HC were analysed. mHLA-DR revealed significant and graded down regulation in MCOV-19 and SCOV-19 as compared to HC whereas IDI was lowest in HC with increasing values in MCOV-19 and SCOV-19. For diagnostic discrimination of MCOV-19 and SCOV-19, IDI revealed highest AUC (0.99). All three immune parameters revealed significant difference between survivors (n = 78) and non-survivors (n = 22). mHLA-DR < 7010 and IDI > 12 had significant association with mortality. Four best performing parameters to identify patients with SCOV-19 at higher risk of mortality were IDI, NLR, ALC and PCT. mHLA-DR and IDI, in addition to NLR and ALC at admission and during hospital stay can be utilized for patient triaging, monitoring, early intervention, and mortality prediction. IDI reported for the first time in this study, appears most promising. Immune monitoring of ‘in hospital’ cases may provide optimized treatment options.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12291-022-01087-z.