Knowledge and Perceptions of Honorary Authorship among Health Care Researchers: Online Cross-sectional Survey Data from the Middle East

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.

Applying the good publication practice 2022 guidelines in the Asia-Pacific region: a practical guide

OBJECTIVE

The Asia-Pacific region (APAC) represents a unique environment for the publication of biomedical research, particularly industry-funded research. Awareness and adoption of international guidelines on ethical publication practices continues to increase across APAC, but the reframing and expansion of many of the recommendations in the Good Publication Practice (GPP) 2022 guidelines versus GPP3 published in 2015 have important implications for publishing industry-funded biomedical research in the region.

METHODS

This manuscript provides practical guidance for stakeholders in APAC on interpreting and applying the recommendations made in the GPP 2022 guidelines.

RESULTS

Key focus areas include navigating new opportunities for communicating industry-funded research, such as plain language summaries, social media, and preprints; implementing formal processes to improve the integrity of published research in APAC; and methods of promoting transparency and inclusion when publishing industry-funded research. Key APAC-specific issues, including encore presentations, leadership on publication ethics in the region, access to professional resources, and support for educating regional stakeholders are also discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this manuscript offers a pragmatic guide for stakeholders in industry-sponsored research on applying GPP 2022 in practice with a focus on effectively integrating these guidelines in an APAC context.

Research misconduct knowledge and associated factors among nurses in China: A national cross-sectional survey

AIM

To measure the knowledge level of research misconduct and explore its associated factors among nurses.

BACKGROUND

Engagement in research misconduct by nurses may transfer to professional misconduct in the clinical setting, thereby jeopardizing the quality of patient care. We still know little about the research misconduct situation among nurses. Previous attempts also hardly reflected participants' real knowledge level of research misconduct.

METHODS

We applied multistage sampling (province, hospital, and participants) in this cross-sectional survey, and recruited 4112 nurses from 200 tertiary hospitals in 25 provinces.

RESULTS

The average knowledge score of the participants was 15.99 ± 5.79. Associated factors of scientific misconduct knowledge score included career situation, educational level, fertility status, research activities index, and perceived consequences for research misconduct.

CONCLUSION

It is urgent and necessary to design continuing research integrity training for nurses. Hospital managers and policy-makers should pay more attention to key trainees, including newcomers, nurses from less developed groups and institutions, and those from clinical departments. Training designers should also consider how to help nurses with offspring balance their family and work, and should not neglect the training for nurses with extensive research experience. In addition to conveying knowledge and information, the training can integrate cognitive education of research misconduct to improve the effect.