Prescribed practices of authorship: review of codes of ethics from professional bodies and journal guidelines across disciplines

Honorary authorship is highly prevalent in health sciences: systematic review and meta-analysis of surveys

A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey research was conducted to estimate honorary authorship prevalence in health sciences. We searched PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. Methodological quality was assessed and quantitative syntheses were conducted. Nineteen surveys were included and rated as having low methodological quality. We found a pooled prevalence of 26% [95% CI 21-31] (6 surveys, 2758 respondents) of researchers that perceived co-author(s) as honorary on the publication at issue (when they were not referred to any authorship criteria). That prevalence was 18% [95% CI 15-21] (11 surveys, 4272 respondents) when researchers were referred to Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) authorship criteria, and 51% [95% CI 47-56] (15 surveys, 5111 respondents) when researchers were asked to declare their co-author(s) contributions on the publication at issue (and these were then compared to ICMJE criteria). 10% of researchers [95% CI 9-12] (11 surveys, 3,663 respondents) reported being approached by others to include honorary author(s) on the publication at issue and 16% [95% CI 13-18] (2 surveys, 823 respondents) admitted adding (an) honorary author(s). Survey research consistently indicates that honorary authorship in the health sciences is highly prevalent, however the quality of the surveys' methods and reporting needs improvement.

Bibliometrics as a promising tool for solving publication ethics issues

Publication ethics principles became one of the main aspects of conducting scientific research and presenting its results. Publication ethics challenges cover a wide range of problems of varying importance that involve all participants of publication processes: authors, academic authorities, peer-reviewers, editorial board members, publishers, and funders. All stakeholders put efforts to make modern science and publication processes ethical. This goal is achieved first of all through detailed criteria of publication ethics and extensive author guidelines, as well as by increasing the level of awareness of these criteria in educational programs aimed at prophylactics of research misconduct. However, there is a need for technical facilities for detecting different cases of violation of ethical principles, and bibliometric methods are one of the most promising approaches. The paper summarizes the authors' recent studies on bibliometric perspectives for detecting plagiarism, inappropriate authorship, and official misconduct among editorial board members.

Perceptions of Scientific Authorship Revisited: Country Differences and the Impact of Perceived Publication Pressure

Relying on data collected by the Zurich Survey of Academics (ZSoA), a unique representative online survey among academics in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland (DACH region), this paper replicates Johann and Mayer's (Minerva 57(2):175-196, 2019) analysis of researchers' perceptions of scientific authorship and expands their scope. The primary goals of the study at hand are to learn more about (a) country differences in perceptions of scientific authorship, as well as (b) the influence of perceived publication pressure on authorship perceptions. The results indicate that academics in Switzerland interpret scientific authorship more leniently than their colleagues in Germany and Austria. The findings further indicate that, as perceived pressure to publish increases, researchers are more likely to belong to a group of academics who hold the view that any type of contribution/task justifies co-authorship, including even those contributions/tasks that do not justify co-authorship according to most authorship guidelines. In summary, the present study suggests that action is required to harmonize regulations for scientific authorship and to improve the research culture.

Systematic review and meta-analyses of studies analysing instructions to authors from 1987 to 2017

To gain insight into changes of scholarly journals' recommendations, we conducted a systematic review of studies that analysed journals' Instructions to Authors (ItAs). We summarised results of 153 studies, and meta-analysed how often ItAs addressed: 1) authorship, 2) conflicts of interest, 3) data sharing, 4) ethics approval, 5) funding disclosure, and 6) International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. For each topic we found large between-study heterogeneity. Here, we show six factors that explained most of that heterogeneity: 1) time (addressing of topics generally increased over time), 2) country (large differences found between countries), 3) database indexation (large differences found between databases), 4) impact factor (topics were more often addressed in highest than in lowest impact factor journals), 5) discipline (topics were more often addressed in Health Sciences than in other disciplines), and 6) sub-discipline (topics were more often addressed in general than in sub-disciplinary journals).

Say my name, say my name: Academic authorship conventions between editorial policies and disciplinary practices

Academic publishing is undergoing profound changes that shape the conditions of knowledge production and the way research is communicated, prompting a lively debate on how the various activities of those involved can be adequately acknowledged in publications. This contribution aims to empirically examine the relationship between authorship regulations in journal policies, the disciplinary variance in authorship practice and larger concepts of academic authorship. Analyzing (1) editorial policies and (2) data from an interdisciplinary survey of scientists, we examine to what extent disciplinary variances are reflected in the policies as well as in researchers' individual understandings. Here we find that the regulation of authorship qua policies is primarily effected at the level of the publishers. Although considerable disciplinary variations of journal policies are sometimes suggested in the literature, we find only minor differences in authorship criteria. The survey data however show that researchers' understandings of authorship exhibit significant, discipline-specific differences, as well as differences related to the characteristics of the research practice. It hence becomes clear that discipline-specific conditions of knowledge production with the resulting differences in authorship practices are hardly reflected in authorship policies. We conclude that the regulatory ambitions of authorship policies mostly focus on the prevention and elimination of deficits in the quality and integrity of scientific publications. Thus, it seems questionable whether authorship policies in their current form are suitable instruments for mediating between diverse authorship practices and normative ideals of legitimate authorship.

Bridging Temporal Divides: Temporal Brokerage in Global Teams and Its Impact on Individual Performance

Members of global teams are often dispersed across time zones. This paper introduces the construct of temporal brokerage, which we define as being in a position within a team’s temporal structure that bridges subgroups that have little or no temporal overlap with each other. Although temporal brokerage is not a formal role, we argue that occupying such a position makes an individual more likely to take on more coordination work than other members on the team. We suggest that, while engaging in such coordination work has advantages in the form of enhanced integrative complexity, it also comes with costs in the form of a greater workload relative to other members. We further argue that the increased integrative complexity and workload that result from occupying a position of temporal brokerage have implications that go beyond the boundaries of the focal team, spilling over into other projects the individual is engaged in. Specifically, we predict that being in positions of temporal brokerage on global teams decreases the quantity but increases the quality of an individual’s total productive output. We find support for these predictions across two studies comprising 4,553 individuals participating in global student project teams and 123,586 individuals participating in global academic research teams, respectively. The framework and findings presented in this paper contribute to theories of global teamwork, pivotal roles and leadership emergence in global teams, and social network theory.

Journals' instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines

In light of increasing calls for transparent reporting of research and prevention of detrimental research practices, we conducted a cross-sectional machine-assisted analysis of a representative sample of scientific journals' instructions to authors (ItAs) across all disciplines. We investigated addressing of 19 topics related to transparency in reporting and research integrity. Only three topics were addressed in more than one third of ItAs: conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and the type of peer review the journal employs. Health and Life Sciences journals, journals published by medium or large publishers, and journals registered in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) were more likely to address many of the analysed topics, while Arts & Humanities journals were least likely to do so. Despite the recent calls for transparency and integrity in research, our analysis shows that most scientific journals need to update their ItAs to align them with practices which prevent detrimental research practices and ensure transparent reporting of research.

Transparent Attribution of Contributions to Research: Aligning Guidelines to Real-Life Practices

Research studies, especially in the sciences, may benefit from substantial non-author support without which they could not be completed or published. The term “contributorship” was coined in 1997 to recognize all contributions to a research study, but its implementation (mostly in biomedical reports) has been limited to the inclusion of an “Author Contributions” statement that omits other contributions. To standardize the reporting of contributions across disciplines, irrespective of whether a given contribution merits authorship or acknowledgment, the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was launched in 2014. Our assessment, however, shows that in practice, CRediT is a detailed authorship classification that risks denying appropriate credit for persons who contribute as non-authors. To illustrate the shortcomings in CRediT and suggest improvements, in this article we review key concepts of authorship and contributorship and examine the range of non-author contributions that may (or may not) be acknowledged. We then briefly describe different types of editorial support provided by (non-author) translators, authors’ editors and writers, and explain why it is not always acknowledged. Finally, we propose two new CRediT taxa and revisions to three existing taxa regarding both technical and editorial support, as a small but important step to make credit attribution more transparent, accurate and open.

Whose Paper Is It Anyway? Authorship Criteria According to Established Scholars in Health Professions Education

PURPOSE

The health professions education (HPE) community is a crossroad of scholars from various disciplines with potentially conflicting views on who qualifies as author. Established HPE scholars are expected to model ethical research conduct, but no research has investigated the extent to which authorship criteria are understood and applied by leaders in the field. This study investigated what leading scholars consider appropriate criteria for authorship and how often these criteria are ignored.

METHOD

Directors of research and editors of HPE journals completed an anonymous survey between September 2015 and August 2016 with questions about authorship practices they experienced and recommended, common authorship criteria, and how often they had encountered unethical authorship decisions.

RESULTS

Out of 82 invited scholars, 46 participated in the survey (response rate = 56.0%). They reported a stark contrast between current and recommended authorship practices. Twenty-two (51.2%) had experienced unethical pressure regarding authorship order, 15 (34.9%) had not been included as author when they qualified, and 25 (58.1%) had seen authors included who did not qualify. A slight majority (n = 25; 58.1%) correctly identified authorship standards widely adopted by biomedical journals.

CONCLUSIONS

A surprising proportion of leaders in the HPE field had encountered unethical authorship practices. Despite widely disseminated authorship criteria, the findings suggest that offering authorship to those who do not qualify, or arguably worse, excluding those who should have been included, remains a common practice. The authors offer strategies to scholars, editors, and tenure and promotion committees to combat these practices.

Transparency in authors' contributions and responsibilities to promote integrity in scientific publication

In keeping with the growing movement in scientific publishing toward transparency in data and methods, we propose changes to journal authorship policies and procedures to provide insight into which author is responsible for which contributions, better assurance that the list is complete, and clearly articulated standards to justify earning authorship credit. To accomplish these goals, we recommend that journals adopt common and transparent standards for authorship, outline responsibilities for corresponding authors, adopt the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) (docs.casrai.org/CRediT) methodology for attributing contributions, include this information in article metadata, and require authors to use the ORCID persistent digital identifier (https://orcid.org). Additionally, we recommend that universities and research institutions articulate expectations about author roles and responsibilities to provide a point of common understanding for discussion of authorship across research teams. Furthermore, we propose that funding agencies adopt the ORCID identifier and accept the CRediT taxonomy. We encourage scientific societies to further authorship transparency by signing on to these recommendations and promoting them through their meetings and publications programs.

How do research faculty in the biosciences evaluate paper authorship criteria?

Authorship of peer-reviewed journal articles and abstracts has become the primary currency and reward unit in academia. Such a reward is crucial for students and postdocs who are often under-compensated and thus highly value authorship as an incentive. While numerous scientific and publishing organizations have written guidelines for determining author qualifications and author order, there remains much ambiguity when it comes to how these criteria are weighed by research faculty. Here, we sought to provide some initial insight on how faculty view the relative importance of 11 criteria for scientific authorship. We distributed an online survey to 564 biomedical engineering, biology, and bioengineering faculty members at 10 research institutions across the United States. The response rate was approximately 18%, resulting in a final sample of 102 respondents. Results revealed an agreement on some criteria, such as time spent conducting experiments, but there was a lack of agreement regarding the role of funding procurement. This study provides quantitative assessments of how faculty members in the biosciences evaluate authorship criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for researchers, especially new graduate students, to help navigate the discrepancy between official policies for authorship and the contributions that faculty truly value.

Dominance and leadership in research activities: Collaboration between countries of differing human development is reflected through authorship order and designation as corresponding authors in scientific publications

Introduction

Scientific collaboration is an important mechanism that enables the integration of the least developed countries into research activities. In the present study, we use the order of author signatures and addresses for correspondence in scientific publications as variables to analyze the interactions between countries of very high (VHHD), high (HHD), medium (MHD), and low human development (LHD).

Methodology

We identified all documents published between 2011 and 2015 in journals included in the Science Citation Index-Expanded categories’ of Tropical Medicine, Infectious Diseases, Parasitology, and Pediatrics. We then classified the countries participating in the publications according to their Human Development Index (HDI), analyzing the international collaboration; positioning and influence of some countries over others in cooperative networks; their leadership; and the impact of the work based on the HDI and the type of collaboration.

Results

We observed a high degree of international collaboration in all the areas analyzed, in the case of both LHD and MHD countries. We identified numerous cooperative links between VHHD countries and MHD/LHD countries, reflecting the fact that cooperative links are an important mechanism for integrating research activities into the latter. The countries with large emerging economies, such as Brazil and China stand out due to the dominance they exert in the collaborations established with the United States, the UK, and other European countries. The analysis of the leadership role of the countries, measured by the frequency of lead authorships, shows limited participation by MHD/LHD countries. This reduced participation among less developed countries is further accentuated by their limited presence in the addresses for correspondence. We observed significant statistical differences in the degree of citation according to the HDI of the participating countries.

Conclusions

The order of signatures and the address for correspondence in scientific publications are bibliographic characteristics that facilitate a precise, in-depth analysis of cooperative practices and their associations with concepts like dominance or leadership. This is useful to monitor the existing balance in research participation in health research publications.

Author contributions to ecological publications: What does it mean to be an author in modern ecological research?

Authorship is a central element of scientific research carrying a variety of rewards and responsibilities, and while various guidelines exist, actual author contributions are often ambiguous. Inconsistent or limited contributions threaten to devalue authorship as intellectual currency and diminish authors’ responsibility for published content. Researchers have assessed author contributions in the medical literature and other research fields, but similar data for the field of ecological research are lacking. Authorship practices in ecological research are broadly representative of a variety of fields due to the cross-disciplinary nature of collaborations in ecological studies. To better understand author contributions to current research, we distributed a survey regarding co-author contributions to a random selection of 996 lead authors of manuscripts published in ecological journals in 2010. We obtained useable responses from 45% of surveyed authors. Reported lead author contributions in ecological research studies consistently included conception of the project idea, data collection, analysis, and writing. Middle and last author contributions instead showed a high level of individual variability. Lead authorship in ecology is well defined while secondary authorship is more ambiguous. Nearly half (48%) of all studies included in our survey had some level of non-compliance with Ecological Society of America (ESA) authorship guidelines and the majority of studies (78%) contained at least one co-author that did not meet International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements. Incidence of non-compliance varied with lead author occupation and author position. The probability of a study including an author that was non-compliant with ESA guidelines was lowest for professor-led studies and highest for graduate student and post doctoral researcher-led studies. Among studies with > two co-authors, all lead authors met ESA guidelines and only 2% failed to meet ICMJE requirements. Middle (24% ESA, 63% ICMJE) and last (37% ESA, 60% ICMJE) authors had higher rates of non-compliance. The probability of a study containing a co-author that did not meet ESA or ICMJE requirements increased significantly with the number of co-authors per study although even studies with only two co-authors had a high probability of non-compliance of approximately 60% (ICMJE) and 15 to 40% (ESA). Given the variable and often limited contributions of authors in our survey and past studies of other research disciplines, institutions, journals, and scientific societies need to implement new approaches to instill meaning in authorship status. A byline approach may not alter author contributions but would better define individual contributions and reduce existing ambiguity regarding the meaning of authorship in modern ecological research.

Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.

Multiple Authorship in Scientific Manuscripts: Ethical Challenges, Ghost and Guest/Gift Authorship, and the Cultural/Disciplinary Perspective

Multiple authorship is the universal solution to multi-tasking in the sciences. Without a team, each with their own set of expertise, and each involved mostly in complementary ways, a research project will likely not advance quickly, or effectively. Consequently, there is a risk that research goals will not be met within a desired timeframe. Research teams that strictly scrutinize their modus operandi select and include a set of authors that have participated substantially in the physical undertaking of the research, in its planning, or who have contributed intellectually to the ideas or the development of the manuscript. Authorship is not an issue that is taken lightly, and save for dishonest authors, it is an issue that is decided collectively by the authors, usually in sync with codes of conduct established by their research institutes or national ministries of education. Science, technology and medicine (STM) publishers have, through independent, or sometimes coordinated efforts, also established their own sets of guidelines regarding what constitutes valid authorship. However, these are, for the greater part, merely guidelines. A previous and recent analysis of authorship definitions indicates that the definitions in place regarding authorship and its validity by many leading STM publishers is neither uniform, nor standard, despite several of them claiming to follow the guidelines as set forward by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors or ICMJE. This disparity extends itself to ghost and guest authorship, two key authorship-related issues that are examined in this paper to assess the extent of discrepancies among the same set of STM publishers and what possible influence they might have on publishing ethics.

Research Integrity and Research Ethics in Professional Codes of Ethics: Survey of Terminology Used by Professional Organizations across Research Disciplines

Professional codes of ethics are social contracts among members of a professional group, which aim to instigate, encourage and nurture ethical behaviour and prevent professional misconduct, including research and publication. Despite the existence of codes of ethics, research misconduct remains a serious problem. A survey of codes of ethics from 795 professional organizations from the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Codes of Ethics Collection showed that 182 of them (23%) used research integrity and research ethics terminology in their codes, with differences across disciplines: while the terminology was common in professional organizations in social sciences (82%), mental health (71%), sciences (61%), other organizations had no statements (construction trades, fraternal social organizations, real estate) or a few of them (management, media, engineering). A subsample of 158 professional organizations we judged to be directly involved in research significantly more often had statements on research integrity/ethics terminology than the whole sample: an average of 10.4% of organizations with a statement (95% CI = 10.4-23-5%) on any of the 27 research integrity/ethics terms compared to 3.3% (95% CI = 2.1–4.6%), respectively (P<0.001). Overall, 62% of all statements addressing research integrity/ethics concepts used prescriptive language in describing the standard of practice. Professional organizations should define research integrity and research ethics issues in their ethics codes and collaborate within and across disciplines to adequately address responsible conduct of research and meet contemporary needs of their communities.

Ethics of using language editing services in an era of digital communication and heavily multi-authored papers

Scientists of many countries in which English is not the primary language routinely use a variety of manuscript preparation, correction or editing services, a practice that is openly endorsed by many journals and scientific institutions. These services vary tremendously in their scope; at one end there is simple proof-reading, and at the other extreme there is in-depth and extensive peer-reviewing, proposal preparation, statistical analyses, re-writing and co-writing. In this paper, the various types of service are reviewed, along with authorship guidelines, and the question is raised of whether the high-end services surpass most guidelines' criteria for authorship. Three other factors are considered. First, the ease of collaboration possible in the internet era allows multiple iterations between the author(s) and the "editing service", so essentially, papers can be co-written. Second, "editing services" often offer subject-specific experts who comment not only on the language, but interpret and improve scientific content. Third, the trend towards heavily multi-authored papers implies that the threshold necessary to earn authorship is declining. The inevitable conclusion is that at some point the contributions by "editing services" should be deemed sufficient to warrant authorship. Trying to enforce any guidelines would likely be futile, but nevertheless, it might be time to revisit the ethics of using some of the high-end "editing services". In an increasingly international job market, awareness of this problem might prove increasingly important in authorship disputes, the allocation of research grants, and hiring decisions.

Publication ethics in biomedical journals from countries in Central and Eastern Europe

Publication ethics is an important aspect of both the research and publication enterprises. It is particularly important in the field of biomedical science because published data may directly affect human health. In this article, we examine publication ethics policies in biomedical journals published in Central and Eastern Europe. We were interested in possible differences between East European countries that are members of the European Union (Eastern EU) and South-East European countries (South-East Europe) that are not members of the European Union. The most common ethical issues addressed by all journals in the region were redundant publication, peer review process, and copyright or licensing details. Image manipulation, editors' conflicts of interest and registration of clinical trials were the least common ethical policies. Three aspects were significantly more common in journals published outside the EU: statements on the endorsement of international editorial standards, contributorship policy, and image manipulation. On the other hand, copyright or licensing information were more prevalent in journals published in the Eastern EU. The existence of significant differences among biomedical journals' ethical policies calls for further research and active measures to harmonize policies across journals.

Network effects on scientific collaborations

Background

The analysis of co-authorship network aims at exploring the impact of network structure on the outcome of scientific collaborations and research publications. However, little is known about what network properties are associated with authors who have increased number of joint publications and are being cited highly.

Methodology/Principal Findings

Measures of social network analysis, for example network centrality and tie strength, have been utilized extensively in current co-authorship literature to explore different behavioural patterns of co-authorship networks. Using three SNA measures (i.e., degree centrality, closeness centrality and betweenness centrality), we explore scientific collaboration networks to understand factors influencing performance (i.e., citation count) and formation (tie strength between authors) of such networks. A citation count is the number of times an article is cited by other articles. We use co-authorship dataset of the research field of ‘steel structure’ for the year 2005 to 2009. To measure the strength of scientific collaboration between two authors, we consider the number of articles co-authored by them. In this study, we examine how citation count of a scientific publication is influenced by different centrality measures of its co-author(s) in a co-authorship network. We further analyze the impact of the network positions of authors on the strength of their scientific collaborations. We use both correlation and regression methods for data analysis leading to statistical validation. We identify that citation count of a research article is positively correlated with the degree centrality and betweenness centrality values of its co-author(s). Also, we reveal that degree centrality and betweenness centrality values of authors in a co-authorship network are positively correlated with the strength of their scientific collaborations.

Conclusions/Significance

Authors’ network positions in co-authorship networks influence the performance (i.e., citation count) and formation (i.e., tie strength) of scientific collaborations.

Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript? Analysis of open-ended responses of authors in a general medical journal

Background

To assess how authors would describe their contribution to the submitted manuscript without reference to or requirement to satisfy authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), we analyzed responses of authors to an open-ended question “Why do you think you should be the author on this manuscript?”.

Methods

Responses of authors (n=1425) who submitted their manuscripts (n=345) to the Croatian Medical Journal, an international general medical journal, from March 2009 until July 2010 were transcribed and matched to ICMJE criteria. Statements that could not be matched were separately categorized. Responses according to the number of authors or their byline position on the manuscript were analyzed using Mann–Whitney U test and Moses test of extreme reactions.

Results

The number of authors per manuscript ranged from 1 to 26 (median=4, IQR=3-6), with the median of 2 contributions per author (IQR=2-3). Authors’ responses could be matched to the ICMJE criteria in 1116 (87.0%) cases. Among these, only 15.6% clearly declared contributions from all 3 ICMJE criteria; however, if signing of the authorship form was taken as the fulfillment of the third ICMJE criterion, overall fraction of deserving authorship was 54.2%. Non-ICMJE contributions were declared by 98 (7.6%) authors whose other contributions could be matched to ICMJE criteria, and by 116 (13.0%) authors whose contributions could not be matched to ICMJE criteria. The most frequently reported non-ICMJE contribution was literature review. Authors on manuscripts with more than 8 authors declared more contributions than those on manuscript with 8 or fewer authors: median 2, IQR 1–4, vs. median 2, IQR 1–3, respectively (Mann Whitney U test, p=0.001; Moses Test of Extreme Reactions, p<0.001). Almost a third of single authors (n=9; 31.0%) reported contributions that could not be matched to any ICMJE criterion.

Conclusions

In cases of multi-author collaborative efforts but not in manuscripts with fewer authors open-ended authorship declaration without instructions on ICMJE criteria elicited responses from authors that were similar to responses when ICMJE criteria were explicitly required. Current authorship criteria and the practice of contribution declaration should be revised in order to capture deserving authorship in biomedical research.