Ghost-authors, improvement article communication, and medical publications

Ghostwriting in biomedicine: a review of the published literature

Introduction: The systematic review of biomedical ghostwriting has proven challenging due to problems in consistency and in study design. Moreover, authorship guidelines established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) may have inadvertently created opportunities to potentiate ghostwriting. Given continued interest in ghostwriting by the International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organizations, we undertook an analysis of ghostwriting in the biomedical literature.Methods: We searched PubMed (search terms: ghost writ*, ghostwrit*, ghost writer, ghostwriter, ghostwriting and ghost writing). Results, including abstracts, were reviewed for relevance (relationship to ghostwriting in biomedical journals) to aid in removal of inapplicable work and duplicate publications. After review, we consolidated expert opinions for publication professionals.Results: Overlap was poor across search terms; of 181 unique papers identified, most (112/181) were opinion pieces. An increasing number of papers are using the term "ghostwriting" to describe genetics as well as diverse phenomena of misattributed authorship, including "ghost authorship". Eight primary studies and 1 systematic review of ghostwriting incidence were identified, reporting prevalence ranging from <1% to 91%, in varied settings using differing methods and definitions of ghostwriting. Suggestions for avoiding ghostwriting include early consensus building and better definitions of authorship among manuscript teams.Discussion: The prevalence and definition of ghostwriting remain unclear. Increased transparency and auditable authorship practices that align with specific guidelines may aid in the avoidance of ghostwriting. In addition, MeSH or clearer indexing terms may be helpful to separate usages of ghostwriting in scientific settings (e.g. genetic research) versus biomedical publishing.

Publish or Perish mantra in the medical field: A systematic review of the reasons, consequences and remedies

OBJECTIVES

Generally, academic promotions, job retention, job mobility, and professional development of a medical faculty members are judged primarily by the growth in publication outputs. Universities and research institutions are more likely to recruit and promote those academics carrying voluminous résumés with larger number of published articles. This review elaborates the causes and consequences of the pressure to publish and the ways and means to cope with this paradigm.

METHODS

In 2015, database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LISTA (EBSCO), Medline and Oxford University Library were searched for the English language full-text articles published during 2000-2015, by using MeSH terms "pressure to publish", "urge to publish", "research ethics", "plagiarism", "article retraction", "medical field". This search was further refined by selecting the articles in terms of relevancy and contents.

RESULTS

This research showed that some universities offer generous grants to researchers with a high h-index and with more publications in elite journals, which promise an enhanced prospect of citations and elevation in the scientific rankings of the funding institutions. This generates an involuntary obsession to publish with the primary intention to obtain promotions, high scientific rankings, and improved job security. This compelling pressure to publish results in widespread publication of non-significant research with a high index of plagiarism that eventually leads to an increased frequency of retractions.

CONCLUSION

Research centers and academic institutions have an obligation to train their academics in sound scientific writing and to apprise them of the publication ethics and the grave consequences of plagiarism and research misconduct.

Systematic review on the primary and secondary reporting of the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature

BACKGROUND

Ghostwriting of industry-sponsored articles is unethical and is perceived to be common practice.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review how evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting is reported in the medical literature.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE via PubMed 1966+, EMBASE 1966+, The Cochrane Library 1988+, Medical Writing 1998+, The American Medical Writers Association (AMWA) Journal 1986+, Council of Science Editors Annual Meetings 2007+, and the Peer Review Congress 1994+ were searched electronically (23 May 2013) using the search terms ghostwrit*, ghostauthor*, ghost AND writ*, ghost AND author*.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All publication types were considered; only publications reporting a numerical estimate of possible ghostwriting prevalence were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two independent reviewers screened the publications; discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Data to be collected included a numerical estimate of the prevalence of possible ghostwriting (primary outcome measure), definitions of ghostwriting reported, source of the reported prevalence, publication type and year, study design and sample population.

RESULTS

Of the 848 publications retrieved and screened for eligibility, 48 reported numerical estimates for the prevalence of possible ghostwriting. Sixteen primary publications reported findings from cross-sectional surveys or descriptive analyses of published articles; 32 secondary publications cited published or unpublished evidence. Estimates on the prevalence of possible ghostwriting in primary and secondary publications varied markedly. Primary estimates were not suitable for meta-analysis because of the various definitions of ghostwriting used, study designs and types of populations or samples. Secondary estimates were not always reported or cited correctly or appropriately.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence for the prevalence of ghostwriting in the medical literature is limited and can be outdated, misleading or mistaken. Researchers should not inflate estimates using non-standard definitions of ghostwriting nor conflate ghostwriting with other unethical authorship practices. Editors and peer reviewers should not accept articles that incorrectly cite or interpret primary publications that report the prevalence of ghostwriting.