More than one-third of Cochrane reviews had gift authors, whereas ghost authorship was rare

Automatically listing senior members of departments as co-authors is highly prevalent in health sciences: meta-analysis of survey research

A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted to assess the prevalence of automatically listing (a) senior member(s) of a department as co-author(s) on all submitted articles in health sciences and the prevalence of degrees of support on a 5-point justification scale. Survey research was searched in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. until January 5 2023. We assessed the methodological quality of studies and conducted quantitative syntheses. We identified 15 eligible surveys, that provided 67 results, all of which were rated as having low quality. A pooled estimate of 20% [95% CI 16-25] (10 surveys, 3619 respondents) of researchers in various health sciences reported that a senior member of their department was automatically listed as an author on all submitted articles. Furthermore, 28% [95% CI 22-34] of researchers (10 surveys, 2180 respondents) felt that this practice was 'never', 24% [95% CI 22-27] 'rarely', 25% [95% CI 23-28] 'sometimes', 13% [95% CI 9-17] 'most of the time', and 8% [95% CI 6-9] 'always justified'. The practice of automatically assigning senior members of departments as co-authors on all submitted manuscripts may be common in the health sciences; with those admitting to this practice finding it unjustified in most cases.Registration of the protocol The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. Link: https://osf.io/4eywp/ .

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.

Quantitative research assessment: using metrics against gamed metrics

Quantitative bibliometric indicators are widely used and widely misused for research assessments. Some metrics have acquired major importance in shaping and rewarding the careers of millions of scientists. Given their perceived prestige, they may be widely gamed in the current "publish or perish" or "get cited or perish" environment. This review examines several gaming practices, including authorship-based, citation-based, editorial-based, and journal-based gaming as well as gaming with outright fabrication. Different patterns are discussed, including massive authorship of papers without meriting credit (gift authorship), team work with over-attribution of authorship to too many people (salami slicing of credit), massive self-citations, citation farms, H-index gaming, journalistic (editorial) nepotism, journal impact factor gaming, paper mills and spurious content papers, and spurious massive publications for studies with demanding designs. For all of those gaming practices, quantitative metrics and analyses may be able to help in their detection and in placing them into perspective. A portfolio of quantitative metrics may also include indicators of best research practices (e.g., data sharing, code sharing, protocol registration, and replications) and poor research practices (e.g., signs of image manipulation). Rigorous, reproducible, transparent quantitative metrics that also inform about gaming may strengthen the legacy and practices of quantitative appraisals of scientific work.

Undeserved authorship in surgical research: an underestimated bias with potential side effects on academic careers

The incidence of courtesy authorship in research over time has probably increased due to the enormous pressure to publish to increase the bibliometric indexes necessary to achieve an academic role. The aim of this survey was to quantify and characterize this research malpractice among a very selected group of surgeons from different surgical specialties belonging to the European Association of Surgery (ESA). E-mail addresses for the invitation to take part to the survey were collected by the Twenty-eighth Annual Meeting final program. Five-item were designed and developed by the authors using an online platform. Eighty-six members from 21 countries completed the survey (female/male ratio: 0.09). In the last 10 years, almost half of the responders (41, 47.7%, 37 academics) have included colleagues for courtesy authorship. The most common reason of courtesy authorships was to support the academic career of another researcher (62.5%). Other reasons were fear of retaliation (12.5%), reciprocal authorship (12.5%) or support for a partner (10%). This survey showed that undeserved authorship is sadly confirmed to be a common research misconduct across any countries and medical specialties, even among a very selected group of surgeons with international reputation irrespective of the academic position.

Search is a verb: systematic review searching as invisible labor

Invisible labor is a term used by labor economists to describe work that contributes, and is often even necessary, to the economy but largely goes unrecognized and unpaid. Despite the fact that systematic review searching is a significant task for many librarians and knowledge professionals, the search process can be considered a form of invisible labor because it often goes without recognition. This occurs sometimes through not granting authorship to the librarian who performed the intellectual contribution of search development and sometimes through a devaluing of the search process by the choice of language used to describe the search. By using the term search as a passive verb or noun, authors devalue the real intellectual labor involved in searching, which includes decisions related to search terms and combinations, database selection, and other search parameters. This commentary explores the context of how searching is described through the concept of invisible labor.

Courtesy Authorship Practices Among First and Senior Authors: Evaluation of Motivations, Gender Bias, and Inequities

OBJECTIVES

A courtesy author is an individual who has not met authorship criteria but is listed as an author. This practice is common and often seen as victimless. Because publications are used for funding and promotion decisions, it is critical to understand biases in this practice.

METHODS

An anonymous survey was conducted from March to October 2020 of first and senior authors of publications from 2014 to 2015 in 8 surgical journals. Authors were surveyed about demographic data, practice setting, and courtesy author practices.

RESULTS

Three hundred forty-one authors responded (16% response rate). 75% were from academic practice settings. 14% reported adding courtesy authors 5 or more times in the past year. Courtesy authors were more often male (80%, P = 0.023), older (75%), and of higher academic rank (65%) than first/senior authors. All author groups were >75% white. When a reason was reported, 46% added a courtesy author due to avoid retaliation; 64% to avoid awkwardness. 26% expected reciprocal authorship offers. 92% of respondents acknowledge understanding International Committee of Medical Journal Editors authorship criteria. Women were less common among those added from goodwill than those added from fear (P = 0.039.) When courtesy authors were of a lower rank than first/senior authors, they were nearly twice as likely to be female (P = 0.0056) or non-white (P = 0.0184.).

CONCLUSION

Courtesy authors were more often male, older, and higher rank than first/senior authors. Fear of career consequences was a major motivator for including courtesy authors. Understanding the motivations and pressures leading to courtesy authorship will help to correct this practice.

Exclusion of Expert Contributors From Authorship Limits the Quality of Scientific Articles

Veterinary pathologists are key contributors to multidisciplinary biomedical research. However, they are occasionally excluded from authorship in published articles despite their substantial intellectual and data contributions. To better understand the potential origins and implications of this practice, we identified and analyzed 29 scientific publications where the contributing pathologist was excluded as an author. The amount of pathologist-generated data contributions were similar to the calculated average contributions for authors, suggesting that the amount of data contributed by the pathologist was not a valid factor for their exclusion from authorship. We then studied publications with pathologist-generated contributions to compare the effects of inclusion or exclusion of the pathologist as an author. Exclusion of the pathologist from authorship was associated with significantly lower markers of rigor and reproducibility compared to articles in which the pathologist was included as author. Although this study did not find justification for the exclusion of pathologists from authorship, potential consequences of their exclusion on data quality were readily detectable.