"Political co-authorships" in medical science journals

[Authorship and Inappropriate Authorship from an Ethical Publication Perspective]

Authorship is important for research integrity and publication ethics, acting as the basis for credit and academic achievement. Moreover, publication achievements have a significant impact on research grants and academic careers. Inappropriate authorship has been reported for several reasons, including complex interests and competitive environments. One form of this is representative authorship misuse, which includes honorary and ghost authorships. Kin co-authorship, such as parent-children authorship, is another form of inappropriate authorship that has recently emerged as a social problem in Korea. To address these issues, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) has established criteria for authorship. Similarly, many journals use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) and Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) systems to prevent authorship misuse and systematically evaluate author credit and responsibility. Herein, this article reviews authorship and inappropriate authorship, as well as introduces methods to avoid authorship misuse.

Publication Times in Ophthalmology Journals: The Story of Accepted Manuscripts

Introduction: The process of scientific publishing changed greatly in the past decades. The authors aimed to get insight into the time required for articles to be accepted and released online in high-impacted ophthalmology journals.

Methods: Comprehensive review of all original articles published by eight ophthalmology journals during a one-year period was performed for 2020 and 2005. Time taken from submission to acceptance and the first online release of the article was abstracted and analyzed.

Results: A total of 3110 articles were reviewed. In 2020, the overall median time from submission to acceptance (AT) was 119 days (IQR 83-168) and 30 days (10-71) from acceptance to the first online release of the article (OP). AT increased by 7.3% from 2005 to 2020, whereas OP reduced by 73%. Publications, which the corresponding author was affiliated with US-located institution had shorter both AT and OP in 2005 and 2020. The author’s specialty in ophthalmology had an inconclusive impact on AT and OP. Papers with multiple affiliated institutions had shorter AT and OP in both 2005 and 2020; however, these differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This study demonstrated that increasing pressure on authors, editors, and reviewers to publish articles and journals with high impact factor (IF) significantly influenced publication times in ophthalmology journals. Inflation of research papers was associated with rising AT time. A significant decrease in OP time was potentially explained by the editor’s demand to achieve decent journal IF. This article brings to light relative publication times in the ophthalmology scientific journals.

Opportunities and disconnects in the use of primary research on schistosomiasis and soil-transmitted helminths for policy and practice: results from a survey of researchers

Even with efforts to facilitate use of evidence in health policy and practice, limited attention has been paid to researchers' perspectives on use of their research in informing public health policy and practice at local, national, and global levels. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify published primary research related to schistosomiasis or soil-transmitted helminths, or both. We then surveyed corresponding authors. Results indicate differences by locations of authors and in conduct of research, especially for research conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Our findings exemplify disparities in research leadership discussed elsewhere. Researchers' perspectives on the use of their work suggest limited opportunities and 'disconnects' that hinder their engagement with policy and other decision-making processes. These findings highlight a need for additional efforts to address structural barriers and enable engagement between researchers and decision-makers.

A review of the literature on ethical issues related to scientific authorship

The article at hand presents the results of a literature review on the ethical issues related to scientific authorship. These issues are understood as questions and/or concerns about obligations, values or virtues in relation to reporting, authorship and publication of research results. For this purpose, the Web of Science core collection was searched for English resources published between 1945 and 2018, and a total of 324 items were analyzed. Based on the review of the documents, ten ethical themes have been identified, some of which entail several ethical issues. Ranked on the basis of their frequency of occurrence these themes are: 1) attribution, 2) violations of the norms of authorship, 3) bias, 4) responsibility and accountability, 5) authorship order, 6) citations and referencing, 7) definition of authorship, 8) publication strategy, 9) originality, and 10) sanctions. In mapping these themes, the current article explores major ethical issue and provides a critical discussion about the application of codes of conduct, various understandings of culture, and contributing factors to unethical behavior.

Perish or Publish Dilemma: Challenges to Responsible Authorship

Controversies related to the concept and practice of responsible authorship and its misuse have been among the most prominent issues discussed in the recent literature on research integrity. Therefore, this paper aims to address the factors that lead to two major types of unethical authorship, namely, honorary and ghost authorship. It also highlights negative consequences of authorship misuse and provides a critical analysis of different authorship guidelines, including a recent debate on the amendments of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship definition. Empirical studies revealed that honorary authorship was the most prevalent deviation from the responsible authorship standards. Three different modalities of honorary authorship were distinguished: gift authorship, guest authorship, and coercive authorship. Prevalence of authorship misuse worldwide and in Europe was alarmingly high, covering approximately one third of all scientific publications. No significant differences were reported in authorship misuse between different health research disciplines. The studies conducted in North America highlighted the most effective means to cope with unethical authorship. These were training in publishing ethics, clear authorship policies developed by medical schools, and explicit compliance with the authorship criteria required by the medical journals. In conclusion, more empirical research is needed to raise awareness of the high prevalence of authorship misuse among scientists. Research integrity training courses, including publication ethics and authorship issues should be integrated into the curricula for students and young researchers in medical schools. Last but not least, further discussion on responsible authorship criteria and practice should be initiated.